Atlas Shrugged

robindch · 2010-06-03 17:28:26

For those not familiar with it, it's a large table-thumper of a book, written by a Russian emigrée to the USA named Ayn Rand who, through that book and others, expounded a philosophy she called Objectivism, something which she claimed was entirely rational. The book is hugely popular in the USA, and apart from the bible, I…

#182 15-06-2010 01:11PM

Galvasean

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2006

Posts: 29410

Just spotted that a film is being made (on the cheap):
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055940034

0

#183 16-06-2010 04:24PM

bnt

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,150 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 12816

I wish they wouldn't try to make a film from the book. They'd have to simplify it drastically and cut out huge chunks of detail. I think the story needs more screen time e.g. make a 6-part TV mini-series or similar.

You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.

―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray

0

#184 17-06-2010 01:16AM

Galvasean

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: September 2006

Posts: 29410

Well the film has 'Part 1' in the title. Not sure how many parts they plan to do.

0

#185 17-06-2010 03:51AM

Dave!

Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: August 2005

Posts: 26627

Funny, I was considering buying this recently, as I've seen and heard a few people reference it -- usually in a disparaging manner, e.g., "...going through my Ayn Rand phase..." :pac: -- but then I discovered that it's over 1000 pages.

I don't have that kind of concentration

0

#186 17-06-2010 03:56AM

Catsmokinpot

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2003

Posts: 1471

There are so many things wrong with a lot of your posts on this subject, I will just touch on a few.

So what are you saying there? that we should drop the Pension? have you ever tried to live on €200 per week? that's what my grandmother gets. she worked more than 60 years of her life, she damn well deserves a pension.

You have a problem with the medical card? We're not animals, you may be an antisocial person, but I personally wouldn't walk past someone who is injured without seeing that they are cared for, this isn't something to be afforded it's a basic human right.

You're saying that we should forget children, **** them says you, they don't matter a ****e.

The main causes of crime are - poverty, lack of education and no social aspirations. these are facts. You stop educating children, they become stupid, they don't aspire to be anything better than they already are and eventually they turn to crime because of lack of options and perceived injustices against them for being left behind.

What other method would you use to steer children away from crime, given the hard facts we know about crime and its causes?

So you're saying that the Banks were crying out trying to be honest with what was going on and our government was forcing them to take all of our money and go down to the bookies with it?

You must be joking.

I'd rather have a faulty regulatory system that can be fixed, than none at all.

I must say that I haven't read any of Ayn Rands writings, but to me she sounds like a selfish baby/sociopath that wants the world to herself and looks to go back to a class system where the well to do (born into positions of wealth and power) get the head start and the poor get left behind.

HAH! what planet were you living on?

no, the welfare state didn't destroy volunteerism and charity, I'd like to see some proof here please, because as far as I can see it's alive and well.

I would consider myself a left-libertarian, I believe the social ills you perceive; are caused by totally different things which, if you looked passed the writings of a few books and out into the real world you might spot for yourself.

Crime for instance you say is getting worse because of social welfare, wrong. Most of the rises in violent crime are due to drug wars between rival gangs. a changing of drug policy from arresting and detaining criminals we have created, to the legalisation, taxation and regulation, would eliminate criminal gangs, would increase the safety of drugs and lower death rates, and a program of education would go a long way to helping people stay away, because not talking about it at all is not helping anyone.

Also studies show that creating a council estates solely for welfare recipients adds to crime. So modifying this arrangement (like Belgium and others) by putting council houses in amongst normal housing makes a big difference because the unemployed person wakes up next door to a doctor or a shop manager, and not next to another unemployed person therefore he has something to aspire to. and his or her children grow up with different aspirations.

0

#187 17-06-2010 02:43PM

Zombrex

Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2001

Posts: 25665

Not really, I always wonder why libertarians say things like this. Behavior of companies and individuals in corrupt totalitarian regimes are a big warning against libertarian ideals.

They were "corrupt" precisely because they were going against the ideals that they were supposed to be hold to, that being helping society in general. The corruption was the removal of the very restraints libertarians don't want there in the first place. As Cat says I would rather have a broke-able/corruptible system than simply remove the system all together.

With libertarianism there is no such pretext. There is nothing to corrupt, you aren't supposed to be helping your fellow man in the first place. Such selfish behavior is the point. You do what you like without restraint from society in general. And restraint from the State in order to protect society at large is an abuse of rights.

The libertarian concept naively says that given the freedom people won't act in detrimental ways to their fellow man and society at large. There seems little reason to actually believe this, as corruption in places like the USSR demonstrate.

0

#188 17-06-2010 03:12PM

Permabear

Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 37386

This post has been deleted.

0

#189 17-06-2010 04:32PM

Catsmokinpot

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2003

Posts: 1471

I don't think there is any irony there, I think there has been realism shown by Conservative Political parties that have adopted a health/social service. they have to be populist to get elected and to stay elected. (apart from in Ireland where they just have to be the largest minority who wants to get in bed with another party) these parties realise the need for a health and social welfare service that the people want. Yes, I'm sure that it does need revamping, but getting rid of it is madness.

I think you'll find that €200 was almost equivalent to £95.25 at one stage in the not too distant past.

Need I tell you that comparing with England is a flawed premise due to differences in population size, GDP per capita (which is far higher in Ireland by the way) and the fact that the NHS is for every British citizen (even foreign citizens) and not just for people with a card.

The fact is Ireland should be able to afford much more than it does, and my main problem with the way things are is the wastefulness and failure of government and a the failure of the people to be able to sack their government if they do not do their job and deprive them of their state pension etc.

Not that its any of your business, my grandmother had saved quite a substantial amount, had a house in Spain and Wasn't claiming any money from anywhere until she split with her partner, and had to move back from her dream house to Ireland, bought a large house with whatever money she had left. She used it as a B&B until she wasn't able to work any more.

She had to sell her house, and buy a new smaller one, around this time was the "housing boom" she sold a 7 bedroom house for around 90,000 and nearly spent that building her new (smaller) house.

Your society would have made her sell her own house to pay for a nursing home till she dies because of a boom she didn't create.

0

#190 17-06-2010 04:46PM

Zombrex

Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2001

Posts: 25665

But look at what you said there. "Abuses" occur. Which is what I said in relation to corrupt. What happened in the USSR was a corruption of the communist ideal of society.

And what ended up happening was basically libertarianism. People took property as their own and did what ever the heck they wanted with it with no regard for the effect on the wider community. They polluted the heck out of it because they could, because the totalitarian system in Russia gave them complete control over these lands. And history judges that as an abuse, a corruption.

Where as in Libertarianism, that is what you are supposed to do. It is your land, you can do what ever the heck you want with it and no State or social organisation can tell you otherwise.

What if it is his property? And he wants to use it an open mine because he would rather have the money.

No, I'm saying that when no one does set up a soup kitchen in a libertarian society no one will say that you are doing it wrong, because so long as you are doing what you want then you are doing what you are supposed to be doing.

Likewise when everyone decides that actually they would like to strip their land for as much as they can (like in the USSR) never mind the destruction to the land itself (which after all is yours), again no one is going to say that is wrong or not what you are supposed to do. It is your property, do what you like I and the rest of society don't have the right to tell you to stop.

Which is why governments exist.

0

#191 17-06-2010 05:00PM

The Mad Hatter

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭

Join Date: January 2006

Posts: 4607

I love the undertone here that says "so fuck her."

But don't worry, catsmokingpot. I'm sure someone would set up a soup kitchen.

0

#192 17-06-2010 05:23PM

Zombrex

Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2001

Posts: 25665

It is not "unfortunate", it is a problem. One libertarianism doesn't even attempt to solve. So how is it a better system to have old people dying in the street and simply hope that someone may decided to help them through charity?

You keep talking about all the money we are spending. So? I would rather spend money than have old people rotting. You have no solutions only attacks at the current system. I agree the current system has its flaws, but you are doing a terrible job at explaining how libertarianism is better.

0

#193 17-06-2010 05:30PM

Permabear

Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 37386

This post has been deleted.

0

#194 17-06-2010 05:42PM

Permabear

Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 37386

This post has been deleted.

0

#195 17-06-2010 05:54PM

Catsmokinpot

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2003

Posts: 1471

I call BS, individual/joint ownership of a particular piece of land does not cause pollution, Industry, farming using improper techniques (like the huge collective farms in the USSR), Illegal dumping of waste and deforestation causes pollution.

In this country, Irish attitude, lack of bins and the cost of recycling materials makes ignorant people dump rubbish on the side of the street. This doesn't happen half as much in other countries because attitudes are different.

I say Attitude because I was taught when growing up to put my rubbish in the bin, and if there was no bin, to carry it for miles in my pocket until I found one. But even so, some of my best friends still throw rubbish on the street. Lack of education and teaching at home is probably the main cause for littering but there are others.

If recycling is profitable - then it shouldn't cost a penny to recycle, but privately owned companies charge yearly and monthly charges to recycle. I personally have to purchase bags to recycle, at the cost of €2 per bag.

In places like Belgium (I mention Belgium because I lived there) Container parks are free, you can bring your recycling to them and it doesn't cost a penny there are bins everywhere, even on the side of the road there is a "net bin" on most intersections for passing cyclists and walkers to throw their rubbish into.

Small measures, like free recycling, and free bins in the street and public parks, education and changing of attitude will stop littering and dumping.

The only thing that has stopped Private companies from dumping is Governmental policy, and even that doesn't stop them. private companies only care about their bottom line, if its more profitable to pollute then they pollute. only after they are fined will they clean up their act. you name a private corporation with private property and they have probably violated some environmental law.

So you're going about your business tending to your private plants and your private lawn, how do you get to your friends house? you go down a street, who owns the street? since it's private, are you allowed to go down it? who cleans the street? what about the air, who's air is it? is it private air? will people individually look after their private air space? I don't think so.

0

#196 17-06-2010 05:56PM

robindch

Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2004

Posts: 24055

Mod note - I don't think anybody supports giving 300 euros to OAP's, weekly, so I think it would be best to debate the points that people are supporting.

0

#197 17-06-2010 05:59PM

Zombrex

Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2001

Posts: 25665

You are sort of missing the point. You are focusing on the corruption bit when they took the land from people on it.

That isn't the point. The point is what they did with the land once they had it and when there was nothing to stop them.

In a libertarian system where the government cannot regulate private property what stops you from buying a forest and turning it into a nuclear land fill?

Even in a system like Communism this is recognized as corruption since even a basic State, even a totalitarian one, has an idea, no matter how vague, that you never totally own your own property and land and thus the state has responsibility to limit what you do on it in order to preserve it.

So if someone, in this case the Russian state, takes land and does what it likes with it this is seen, in nearly ever system, as a bad thing, a type of abuse or corruption, something that should be stopped by society.

Except this is the norm in libertarianism where society cannot regular what you do with your own property.

I think you missed the point, I wasn't claiming you do not think government should exist, I'm pointing out that the purpose of government is to solve the problems you think either shouldn't be solved or should be solved through voluntarism. Humans tried libertarianism thousands of years ago, it lead to governments and social states because libertarianism doesn't work.

0

#198 17-06-2010 06:01PM

robindch

Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2004

Posts: 24055

I mentioned Russia, and not the Soviet Union for two reasons -- (a) it's a country I know rather well and (b) the brand of bandit capitalism currently rampant within the country is close, in many respects (though not all), to a libertarian polity.

Valmont suggested that under a liberterian polity, BP would want to clear up the mess purely to save their own reputation. The ecological disaster that is Norilsk proves that this position is entirely false.

0

#199 17-06-2010 06:07PM

Zombrex

Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2001

Posts: 25665

Like I said, Libertarinism doesn't even attempt to solve the problem.

Again this is the nonsense of these types of ideologies, they rely on ridiculous assumptions of what will just magically happen. It is like saying that Communism works fine because the state will education people that they don't actually want stuff and property and if they don't want it they aren't going to mind not having it. Therefore will be no social problems, what are you worried about.

Or the Christians saying we don't need medical programs in Africa, we just need to education people to be abstinent. If people just stop having sex no HIV. Problem solved.

Any ideology that relies on people just all acting the way the proponents of the ideology want them to, which no idea what they do if they don't, is a failed ideology, pure and system. People don't do what you want them to do. If they did we wouldn't have problems in the first place.

And cross your fingers and just hope nothing ever goes wrong. Sign me up.

Again you deflect from address the actual issue (that in libertarianism there would be no state pension at all) by simply complaining about the current system.

You are, perhaps on purpose, spectacularly missing the point which is while the current system may have problems you have failed utterly to explain how your system would be any better or even as good as.

Oh the solution to that is easy, we will simply educated people so that they are happy to pay way more taxes than they currently pay

See, I can come up with nonsense solutions as well.

0

#200 17-06-2010 06:25PM

Permabear

Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 37386

This post has been deleted.

0

#201 17-06-2010 06:33PM

Zombrex

Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: March 2001

Posts: 25665

And then what?

Everyone, once "indicated" to what is happening will just do as they are expected? They will save. They will be responsible. They won't become sick or unemployed.

Again what happens when things don't work as planned. And please a straight answer this time, not "oh well what happens when things don't work now"

In a system with no welfare system what happens when someone needs welfare? In a system reliant on charity what happens when someone needs charity yet no one wants to help them?

Neither is Libertarianism because you have yet to explain how it solves any of the social problems welfare systems do.

0

#202 17-06-2010 07:05PM

Permabear

Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 37386

This post has been deleted.

0

#203 17-06-2010 07:07PM

Catsmokinpot

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2003

Posts: 1471

I don't think anyone is disputing that, but this is a failure of government policy, not a failing of the idea that people should have a safety net in case things go wrong.

As far as I remember Things were a lot cheaper back then, but due to a lovely thing called inflation Things have become more expensive. but the fiat money system is a different problem all together.

You keep talking about how the system is broken, but the system is made of people, and it's the people who are implementing the system for their own gains that is the problem, and with EVERY single system including pure libertarianism you will have selfish people. The system needs to be modified to allow quick changes to be made as far as those in charge of the system, if that was possible, the people in control would act out of self preservation for the good of others, instead of self interest to the detriment of others.

0

#204 17-06-2010 07:22PM

Permabear

Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 37386

This post has been deleted.

0

#205 17-06-2010 07:26PM

Catsmokinpot

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2003

Posts: 1471

insurance with an insurance company? HAH! I pay 1000 a year for insurance, hopefully less next year, if anything was to happen to my nissan micra you know what they would pay me? about €300, you seriously want people to pay money to an insurance company for their retirement fund? people have little to no trust in them as it is.

It solves a lot of crime and education problems. you think it doesn't? get rid of it and see what happens.

0

#206 17-06-2010 07:35PM

Catsmokinpot

Closed Accounts Posts: 1,622 ✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2003

Posts: 1471

but you left out the drop in 2010 of over 9% back to 2008 levels (€196.50) and it's probably going to drop again, I don't deny people are probably getting too much money, but taking away that safety net will mean people without jobs will be out on the street in your society, I don't see any private charity that will turn around and pay peoples rent for them. :rolleyes:

0

#207 17-06-2010 07:49PM

Permabear

Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2008

Posts: 37386

This post has been deleted.

0

#208 17-06-2010 08:46PM

sponsoredwalk

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭

Join Date: August 2009

Posts: 2948

I read you attacking primary school teachers in a thread dated two days ago as well...

You're no libertarian, you're just a reactionary trying to cut wages & welfare using bland logic to further this argument while ignoring that there are other area's of the economy that could be changed to better things for everyone...

You constantly go for the weak option because you haven't done any homework that goes against your pseudo-belief system of liberty...

0

#209 17-06-2010 08:48PM

sponsoredwalk

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭

Join Date: August 2009

Posts: 2948

Just like Russia did after it implemented these type's of reforms in the early 90's, yeah... Look how that turned out...

0

#210 17-06-2010 09:52PM

robindch

Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2004

Posts: 24055

That's the "liberterian solution", not the "liberal solution".

Liberals tend to look out for their fellow citizens and use and build upon systems of trust where they exist. Libertarians, as a matter of policy, do not.

0

#211 17-06-2010 09:59PM

robindch

Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭

Join Date: April 2004

Posts: 24055

That's not a "liberal solution", but a solution based upon the fundamental economic realities which got out way, way out of balance during the boom and the simultaneous collapse in effective market regulation by the state. We wouldn't be in the mess we're in now if the government had governed effectively, and to demonstrate this, there are plenty of countries which haven't suffered a recession in the last two years because their governments did restrain their nations selfish instincts.

By coincidence, the steps you outline also happen to be the first steps towards a libertarian solution too. However, the libertarian will seek to stop welfare altogether, reduce the public sector to not much more than what's needed to maintain the security of the state itself. The latter is not a liberal, but quite the opposite -- a position which is far to the right of center.

.

0

Comments