Atlas Shrugged

Permabear · 03-07-2014 12:29pm

This post has been deleted.

marienbad · 03-07-2014 1:19pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I have no problem documenting it ,I have given enough examples to prove the point .I just don't see why I should do any more work for you , it is not a very objectivist approach.

As for your answer on the mortgage holders etc - that just shows what happens now. I am asking what happens in your system or are you saying that we should move to a bitcoin system ?

Permabear · 03-07-2014 2:38pm

This post has been deleted.

Karl Stein · 03-07-2014 4:17pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nope.

while the capitalistic system that Rand defended

So Rand was defending the capitalistic system now? Wasn't she admonishing the state/capitalistic system?

the capitalistic system [...] has brought us freedom and prosperity.

The ghosts of millions of dead Vietnamese and Iraqis might disagree. 'The capitalistic system' brought death and destruction to many. Numerous countries had democratically elected governments overthrown and replaced by murderous stooges because they didn't toe-the-line.

If we're going to be honest about the crimes of the socialist systems then we should be equally so about the capitalist ones.

marienbad · 03-07-2014 4:38pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You really do operate a bait and switch approach to discussion don't you, nobody disputes that many many intellectuals were fellow travellers with communism , I am just pointing out to you than many many also opposed it. You surely don't dispute that ?

In the same way many were fellow travellers with the Fascist dictators in Europe and just as many were opposed . And of course the fascist dictators in S.America have apologists right up to today.

Now will you answer me on mortgage defaulters argentina and bitcoins in this brave new world of yours ?

robindch · 01-09-2014 3:03pm

David-Robert Grimes looks into libertarianism and concludes that the movement as a whole is inherently anti-scientific:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/aug/29/libertarian-ideology-natural-enemy-science

coffee_cake · 01-09-2014 3:11pm

I'm smiling that the lefties have the monopoly on what's "pragmatic interpretation"

Our individual rights must be balanced against the rights of others, which requires a pragmatic interpretation of political philosophies, and some softening of extremist outlooks.

Sense, this makes none
Free-market defenders may try to pin the blame on costly and needless regulation for driving up prices, but this argument is somewhat superficial, given that they are generally opposed to increased taxation and public spending

Anyway I haven't the energy to go through it properly. an amusing read

Turtwig · 01-09-2014 4:03pm

Perhaps you didn't have the energy to understand it properly? :pac:

Anyway, I don't have the time to read it.

Permabear · 02-09-2014 9:22am

This post has been deleted.

Nodin · 02-09-2014 3:07pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

...which, given his libertarian views, comes as an almighty shock to all.

Permabear · 02-09-2014 3:37pm

This post has been deleted.

robindch · 02-09-2014 4:09pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not sure whether you had a chance to read the article before you commented upon it, but Grimes doesn't discuss Libertarianism so much as an ideal, but Libertarianism as it's implemented by people who self-describe as "Libertarian" and the nature of the beliefs held by such people.

There's probably little conflict between science as it's generally understood by most scientists and what you refer to as "property rights" and "free markets". Though you define neither term unambiguously and that's where some of the problems begin.

Brian Shanahan · 02-09-2014 4:17pm

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm smiling that the lefties have the monopoly on what's "pragmatic interpretation"

Our individual rights must be balanced against the rights of others, which requires a pragmatic interpretation of political philosophies, and some softening of extremist outlooks.

Sense, this makes none
Free-market defenders may try to pin the blame on costly and needless regulation for driving up prices, but this argument is somewhat superficial, given that they are generally opposed to increased taxation and public spending

Anyway I haven't the energy to go through it properly. an amusing read

Well given that your only recourse is to go quote mining to take things out of context in order that they fit your preconceived notions of what use the article is, I am frankly happy that you don't have suffiicient energy.

Given that the second quote is contained in a three paragraph explanation of why the "free" market doesn't work in pharmaceuticals, to whit:

The truth is that without external evaluation, it is difficult to work out the efficacy or side-effects of any drug. Ben Goldacre’s book Bad Pharma illustrates with copious detail that when pharmaceutical companies are obliged to do clinical trials, they are often reported in statistically devious, cherry-picked and wholly dishonest ways to overstate their treatments’ effectiveness. This is unsurprising, given the incentive of a private company is to maximise profit, with scientific integrity coming a distant second.
The expectation that private companies can be trusted to innovate health care is also misguided. While antibiotic resistance has been steadily increasing, for example, practically no new antibiotics have been developed in decades. A major reason for this is that despite the massive impact of antibiotics on mortality rates in the past century, they remain a low-profit product, typically used by a patient for only a short time. It is far more profitable to develop long-term medication for chronic conditions, and unsurprisingly this is what drug companies prefer to do.
This is the logical outcome of entrusting health research to private companies. It also means they can charge extortionate amounts for life-saving medicines. Free-market defenders may try to pin the blame on costly and needless regulation for driving up prices, but this argument is somewhat superficial, given that they are generally opposed to increased taxation and public spending on medical research, which could circumvent this vicious cycle. It also ignores the fact that drugs companies spend multiples of their research budget on marketing.

no wonder a quote containing only part of the conclusion, with none of the evidence or research which backs it up doesn't make sense. It was quoted in such a way as to seem to be gibberish.

coffee_cake · 02-09-2014 4:20pm

It wasn't quote mining, none of the preceding paragraph explains how a dislike of taxation has anything to do with costs of regulation. It just dismisses it as "superficial".

Turtwig · 02-09-2014 4:26pm

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm smiling that the lefties have the monopoly on what's "pragmatic interpretation"

Where exactly is this even implied?

It applied to all political philosophies.

The point about pragmatism is that you can't ignore it. It's all very well and good to have ideologies that people should be free to decide their own destinies, or that people shouldn't be free to decide to their decide their own destinies. There is a balance to where individual freedoms squeeze on the freedoms and welfare of others. Finding that balance is not one bit easy and painting it into a corner that is either libertarian or the polar opposite of it is incredibly naive. Everything comes on a case by case basis and pragmatism is really every going to be the best approximate solution.

coffee_cake · 02-09-2014 4:29pm

Turtwig wrote: »

Where exactly is this even implied? It applied to all political philosophies.

You find me some other guardian articles calling other philisophies enemies of science and pragmatism so

Permabear · 02-09-2014 4:29pm

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig · 02-09-2014 4:34pm

bluewolf wrote: »

You find me some other guardian articles calling other philisophies enemies of science and pragmatism so

But I don't read the guardian. I'm not going to scour the entire website looking for other articles but I'm sure there are some. One bet would on Atheism. Another would be on Religion.

Anyway, the point is that this Author isn't the guardian, surely the views are his own, he just published in the guardian because it's a publication of those sort of viewpoints. Doesn't mean they endorse all his views though. So on the basis of the article where does he imply that the left have a monopoly on pragmaticism?

While we may hold incredibly strong personal convictions, reality doesn’t care one iota for what we believe. If we persist in choosing ideology over evidence, this endangers us all..

The above would seem to indicate that he believes no ideology has a monopoly on pragmatism.

magicbastarder · 02-09-2014 4:37pm

ah jaysus robindch, could you not just have let the thread lie?

Permabear · 02-09-2014 7:11pm

This post has been deleted.

marienbad · 02-09-2014 8:24pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So what, blindness exists everywhere, no one disputes that. What is your answer to real life situations such as Bhopal ,Thalidomide or the Gulf Oil Disaster ?

Bhopal is a classic example of your property rights theory- when they couldn't do it in a developed country they just went where they could do it .
And please don't say Chernobyl .

Valmont · 02-09-2014 9:12pm

We'll see who is more 'pragmatic' and 'scientific' when the funds for massively unsustainable welfare programs start to dry up over the next few decades. That said, I don't think most people realise how much money is wasted by the state on useless research. And that's The Guardian's take on the problem.

marienbad · 02-09-2014 9:24pm

Valmont wrote: »

We'll see who is more 'pragmatic' and 'scientific' when the funds for massively unsustainable welfare programs start to dry up over the next few decades. That said, I don't think most people realise how much money is wasted by the state on useless research. And that's The Guardian's take on the problem.

Well if we can dispense with the Corporate welfare first we should get a little breathing room .

magicbastarder · 02-09-2014 10:56pm

i'm reading 'the price of inequality' by joseph stiglitz at the moment. from what little i know, it sounds like the polar opposite to the notions propounded in 'atlas shrugged'.
if that actually is the case, the chances of me reading atlas shrugged have gone from zero to zero squared, raised to the power of thirteen.

Valmont · 03-09-2014 6:35am

marienbad wrote: »

Well if we can dispense with the Corporate welfare first we should get a little breathing room .

I agree that corporate welfare should be dispensed with but it doesn't address the fatal flaw in the entitlement programs. The left often address the shocking financial hole by providing vague proposals for 'making corporations pay' but I don't think they truly acknowledge the gargantuan size of welfare entitlements compared to corporate wealth.

Consider this: the entire net worth of Apple is approximately £75 billion GBP. That would pay the United Kingdom's entire welfare and civil service pay bill for FIVE WEEKS at its current level. This is figure is only going to rise as the population gets older and there are less milk-able cows slaving away in PAYE jobs.

There's a need for pragmatism and objectivity here that we don't see the left espousing but trying to then claim the left 'is ideologically opposed to science' would be a stupid and childish argument. As is that guff Robindch posted from the Guardian.

Permabear · 03-09-2014 9:09am

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 03-09-2014 9:52am

This post has been deleted.

magicbastarder · 03-09-2014 10:00am

ooh, check out the big brain on Permabear!

i'm not drawing any conclusions about 'Atlas Shrugged' (despite what might be implied above) except that i'm not arsed reading it precisely because i'm 99.9% certain i won't like it.
there are plenty of books which expound a position which would be opposed to mine; not reading them does not amount to 'simplistic populism'.

Permabear · 03-09-2014 10:11am

This post has been deleted.

magicbastarder · 03-09-2014 11:21am

i'm quite happy to read books which are thought provoking and which i may disagree with, if they're good reads. but since even a lot of ayn rand supporters have said it's a badly written book, it's not exactly selling the book well to me when they suggest i read a long, badly written book i probably won't like.

Atlas Shrugged

Comments