Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by AhmedFaisal, Jan 30, 2011.
She was only getting back the money that was 'stolen' from her.
Mostly meh, but to be more specific, she took public assistance to offset personal responsibility for the lung cancer caused by her lifetime of heavy smoking.
Before I read the article, my standard line came to mind, "everyone's a hypocrite." But I love the last sentence of the piece.
In all things moderation.
Rand was an interesting woman. She was born in Russia at the time of the Tzar and the revolution was a backdrop to her teenage years. Her family were persecuted by the Soviets and she managed to escape to the US in 1924.
I've read most of her books and (having grown up in a country almost destroyed by a Socialist government) I have a lot of sympathy with her position. REAL socialism is nothing like medicare or 'Obamacare' - it's a lot more extreme and corrupting.
She was an interesting writer who's philosophy was extreme, based on her own experiences. It would be extremely foolish to follow her writings uncritically, and unhelpful to take such an extreme position (as she appears to have found out just prior to her death).
Seriously? None of our Randians are going to comment.
Of course they won't. One of their heroes has fallen to "socialism". They're embarrassed, of course.
I heard she even used roads paved by the government, and one time mailed a letter vis-a-vis the US Postal Service.
I'll try to find a link.
What is "REAL" socialism? Do you mean what was in place in the Soviet Union? Thats more state capitalism then socialism.
My issue with Rand is that she argued for an "all or nothing" approach.(And then didn't even follow that advice herself) Why limit ourselves? Capitalism works really well in many things, but other times we need to control the market for our own good as a group. I don't see why we need to set ourselves on one or the other and stay there for ever.
In 2008 I supported the government taking a more active role in banking that I would during a more standard time in economic growth. I have no trouble saying I think the government need to change its role depending on how our society is doing.
Nobody's responding because it's a ridiculous, flaccid, transparent argument with no substance.
People who are strongly against oil subsidies don't simply stop buying anything made from plastic or stop filling up their car with gas... because that's the system that's in place and they're forced to work within it.
Farmers who don't believe in subsidies still apply for them because 100% of their competition uses them and they'd be out of business if they didn't.
Local/Organic food advocates still buy a few things at the corporate grocery store, because that's the system that's in place.They have virtually no other choice.
Communists still buy products from capitalist corporations because that's the system that's in place. They have virtually no other choice.
Advocates of massive reductions in government spending still add earmarks to bills because that's the system in place. They have virtually no other choice. Plus, it's a way to get some of their constituents money back from the government.
People who think there should be no speed limits, still avoid speeding because that's the system in place. They don't want to get a ticket or thrown in jail.
Just because you hold a deeply held philosophical beliefs about they way our system should operate does not mean that you must do everything you can, even to your own personal detriment, simply to prove a point. It's a ridiculous tired argument that makes no sense and proves nothing.
I agree and I bet 60-70% of all Americans do. If we could just get them motivated or shut up the 20-30% of loons from both sides, we'd be golden.
She's a good example of why Libertarianism is a pipe dream.
Or in her case, cigarette smoke dream. Interesting how she refused to believe cigarette smoking caused cancer. Just like formaldehyde doesn't either (looking at you, Koch billionaires).
Weak. What would Thomas Paine say, fivepoint? Whatever happened to taking a principled stand? If the opponents of the system gleefully continue profit by it, they are just window-dressing hypocrites. I'm sure Republicans who keep adding earmarks to bills go and whip themselves afterwards as punishment.
While you make a decent point with the others, this one is a complete and total farce. Note the underlined. That logic doesn't even make sense.
Thank God you weren't Martin Luther King Jr, Bobby Kennedy, Ghandi, etc.
I disagree. Ron Paul is one such person. He writes articles against the bill, gives speeches against the bill, votes against the bill in committee, speaks against the bill on the floor, organizes his followers to call their representatives and tell them to vote against the bill, he himself votes against the bill... but just in case it passes, he attaches a few spending appropriations to the bill (at the committee level, not in the middle of the night before the bill sort of thing) for his constituents so that in case the fleecing of Americans continues and the massive spending continues, that at least his constituents will receive SOMETHING in return... and less of it will be redistributed to others. In other words they are able to keep more of their own money. I believe these to be honorable actions of an incredibly honorable politician. In addition, if he didn't do this, he would likely never be reelected to office, so he could not advocate for liberty and a reduction of government on a daily basis.
I think it's equally stupid when conservatives rail on Gore for flying to his climate change meetings in a jet. Assuming climate change caused by humans is indeed real, he's doing more to benefit the cause than he is doing damage to the environment. Perhaps he's involving himself in a 'necessary evil' but I don't think its necessarily hypocritical. People spend too much time whining about this crap, IMHO.
Do you even know who Ayn Rand is?
She's far from a hero of mine, but I do love her books. I'm against a lot of what our government does, but I'm more than stoked to leach off programs like food stamps, and any other way I can swindle resources as long as they're giving it away.
Since when does an earmark send money back to tax payers? At best they get a community project (gasp! the horror!), at worst a business near them gets money to build something.
You can rationalize it all you want man, but there is one word for someone like Ron Paul: hypocrite.
Doesn't Ron Paul want us back on the gold standard? Literally to drop our paper money and start carrying gold coins?
But she's the "voice" of Libertarians. Seems odd that you're comparing yourself to her. But as the summation I quoted says, she was out for herself in the end which is what they're all about anyway.
That's the first time I've heard a libertarian who practices progressive wealth equalization being called honorable. So, it's true after all, you're just playing Devil's Advocate. You and Rand Paul have lost all credibility.