Posted on 03/18/2014 6:25:16 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
The problem with idiots and liberals (but I repeat myself) is that they think “trickle down” means that government GIVES money to the rich and they are supposed to give it to the poor.
I heard idiot Larry King say to a libtard that the problem with ‘trickle down economics’ was that “they didn’t trickle”- meaning those evil greedy rich kept all that money
What it means is that if the rich enterpreaneurs KEPT more of their money (not taxed away) they would be able to provide jobs which would the boost the economy.
“Rand reminds the Right that there is no acceptable form of totalitarianism - even one based on Biblical tenets. It not her atheism they hate, per se - it’s her admonition that the Right isn’t going to produce better quality dictators than the Left does. “
This, times infinity.
If you liked Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, you're going to love Mitch McConnell when he's the Majority Leader. lol
I find people who “hate” Rand amusing. Rand described how totalitarianism worked, and linked that explanation to the protection mechanism of the Constitution. She had her characters act out what the Founders explained through political philosophy. So what’s to disagree with? It’s like arguing with a mechanic about how a car works. It’s not something to argue about - it’s just the facts. Cars work a certain way, and so does totalitarianism. People either block it by countering its mechanisms, or they don’t, and it takes over. If it takes over, it destroys everything and collapses civilization because it can’t do otherwise because it is innately parasitical. Period.
Certain other critics find Rand's personal life to be either too inconsistent with her precepts or too thoroughly consistent, at least with the more convenient ones. I think that's a little like criticizing Milton for kicking his dog, but that's just me. Give us a read and see what you think.
Rand ping.
Same here. I wished I had read Rand as a teen but I really didn’t know her. I read James Burke’s connections and day universe changed. My teachers in high school hated those books. They would have had seizures with ayn rand.
Exactly. The left sees controversy because -- HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY agree with some parts of an individual philosophy, but not the whole?
The left loves to look for, or create "blemishes" where none need to be. I don't have to subscribe to Rand's atheism to know that she was right on target with individual rights, very limited government, and capitalism as the source for the greatest advancements in human history.
Thank you for a great insight, another thing for me to ponder more closely.
“What it means is that if the rich enterpreaneurs KEPT more of their money (not taxed away) they would be able to provide jobs which would the boost the economy”
The rich are not and should not be o obliged to provide jobs or boost the economy.
It just so happens that the act of preserving and growing wealth naturally generates employment and circulates money, which boasts the economy.
My point is that even if the rich burn their money, thus not create jobs and boost the economy, it is their right to do so.
The problem is, without moral absolutes, you'll quickly find there are no limits to any evil. A Republic such as America can only last while it is a moral nation.
Personally, I find much of Rand's ideology to be spot on. I'm just not sure that you can derive all morality from the principles she does.
“Just as in the material realm the plundering of a country’s wealth is accomplished by inflating the currency—so today one may witness the process of inflation being applied to the realm of rights. The process entails such a growth of newly promulgated ‘rights’ that people do not notice the fact that the meaning of the concept is being reversed. Just as bad money drives out good money, so these ‘printing-press rights’ negate authentic rights.”
I see her point in this, the real bear is to determine what is a "authentic right", and what is invented to placate the libertine.
The Roe v Wade decision is a good one to look at in this context. The supreme court, in their ruling said that there was a "right to privacy" implied by the Constitution itself. I think conservatives do themselves a disfavor by objecting to this. It is obvious to me, if you take a look at the first 5 Amendments, that the enumerated rights absolutely imply personal privacy as well. I mean, what the hell else are we supposed to take from the right to be secure in our papers? I do not think this is an 'imaginary' or 'made-up' right, any more than the right to defend oneself is, which is implied by the 2nd (and the common law).
Where we go awry is when people claim as a 'right', that which is dependent upon someone else providing that right for them. By this, I mean stupid notions of a 'right to housing' or a 'right to a job' or similar nonsense. What those 'rights' really mean is that you want to use the government to enslave someone else to provide you with material things. The fact that I have the right to speak, worship the God of my choosing, to bear arms, or not to have personal privacy invaded by the government does not obligate anyone else in any way. I have these rights because I am endowed with them by my Creator, by virtue of my being born a human being.
I believe that to say that you have a 'right' to force someone to bake you a cake is ridiculous, and shows what Rand was talking about. We're seeing that crap in action every day now as the Republic crumbles.
I'd like close by returning to the Roe v. Wade decision briefly, though I'm not particularly interested in arguing the abortion issue. Where I think the court went wrong in that decision was not in saying that we have a right to privacy, (I'd claim it is self-evident that we do), but rather, their mistake was not in correctly identifying abortion as the premeditated murder of a human being. Had they done so, they would have been force to rule against it. It is clear to me they were making a political ruling for whatever reason, and they cloaked it in terms of 'privacy' because they didn't have a better hook to hang it on.
You could also say that Jesus was sent with the sole purpose of -gaining- th world. Not so different at all.
And a postmortem.
>>> I don’t see any sort of irony. Galt was an ideal productive individual who did not need others to succeed... trickle down prosperity if you have to make the stretch. Jesus, on the other hand, was sent for sole purpose of saving the world. To me, polar opposites.
I did not draw an irony either... only a weak parallel between Rhand’s rendition of a savior and what that savior would end up doing about society’s evils. The only comparison I drew between Gault and Jesus was the solution of removing producers[believers] from society and letting evil take it’s natural course as a result.
Nobody can be compared to Jesus.
My copy of “Who is John Galt?” arrived today (sorry it took me so long) and I am anxious to get started.
PS: The dedication to Jim Rob was classy.
Hey, we’re a couple of classy guys.
I’ll drink a toast to you both this evening.
Milton kicked his dog? I hope you don’t mean Friedman;>)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.