ded_maxim | цитата дня

of course, it speaks well for libertarianism that it's persuasive enough to overcome the terrible writing style of Ayn Rand. I can't think of any socialist novel equally persuasive, even though there have been many talented socialist authors.

It would be a mistake to conflate Ayn Rand's views with libertarianism as a whole, although, sadly, most "libertarians" that hang out on the Internets do belong to the Randian "fuck you, I've got mine" variety. Yet another unfortunate fact is that the actual point of Atlas Shrugged totally escapes them, and the point is this: you, whoever you are, are not John Galt.

I never got past the first twenty pages, dude.

As far as the "fuck you, I've got mine" people, I much prefer them to the "I'm fucked, give me yours" variety.

Thing is, people end up in the "I'm fucked, give me yours" variety thanks to all sorts of reasons, some (but not all!) of those reasons being beyond anyone's control no matter how much foresight, insurance or backup planning you have. Glibly lumping all these situations into one is precisely what makes the "fuck you, I've got mine" variety so insufferable and infantile.

I don't care why they're in that situation. Anybody assuming that I owe it to them to help is not entitled to a damn thing. And using the government to coerce others to take care of you is contemptible.

I'm all about charity, but what's the virtue in it when it's compulsory?

Dude, I can't even begin to describe what's so fundamentally wrong with this stance.

Then maybe you need to sit down and rethink your objections to it.

Let me put it another way-what right do I, as an individual, have to make demands on you, as another individual, to better my financial situation? I can ASK you politely to help me out, but how can I demand anything of you?

Or maybe you need to simply come out and say it (http://www.fredoneverything.net/SocializedMedicine.shtml): that which is falling should also be pushed, right? It's always easy to be an armchair social Darwinist as long as you're not the one that needs help.

You're willfully distorting my words. I'm not a social darwinist any more than you're a Stalinist. I had a higher opinion of you.

I'm all about helping people whom I know and who ask me for help. Aside from the morality of extorted charity, I have less time and money to help my family, friends and neighbors if I'm being taxed at forty percent of my paycheck to subsidize gang tattoo removal programs and the octomom. You should also keep in mind that if you make charity compulsory, institutions like extended families and church programs are going to be weakened, since their reason for existing is being made redundant.

I didn't really say that those were your words. I merely wanted to demonstrate that your position, if taken to extremes, can lead to social Darwinism. Let's not stoop to the "I had a higher opinion of you" shaming tricks. You know that I know full well that this is not your position. But, as I said, glibly dismissing all of the people who need help as " moochers, who claim your product by tears" (a quote from Atlas Shrugged), without regard to circumstances, is not what one could call virtue, under any ethical system. By the way, speaking of charity as a virtue, here's what Ayn Rand had to say about it:

My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

This is a pretty sharp contrast to any religious conception of charity.

As it stands, your entire argument boils down to claims about moral hazards. Are you saying that "compulsory charity" would be such a powerful disincentive to individual (or communitarian) charity? Can you actually back up this claim with, you know, statistics and facts? Let's take a predominantly Catholic European country, such as Portugal or Italy. By Randian standards, "compulsory charity" is rampant there. Yet somehow it seems doubtful that this "compulsory charity" has brought about the demise of extended families and/or church programs in these countries. You can't simultaneously claim that individuals, if left to themselves, will help others out of charity and yet, if the appropriate incentives are gone, will be glad to tell those in need to fuck off 'cause the gubmint will take care of them anyway.

I don't know anything about what you know and don't know. I know you only as a bunch of words on the internet. Any position if taken to extremes can lead to bad things; however, what my position would lead to if taken to an extreme is not social darwinism but rather an Afghanistan-type tribal situation with a network fo social obligations. This doesn't seem to me to be the worst possible scenario. But since we're not talking extremes, let's stick to the meat of the argument.

I have said nothing about people who "need help." I do have lots of things to say about people who DEMAND help from "society," i.e., everybody who happens to live in the same country. I'm sure the distinction isn't lost on you.

As I've said before, what Ayn Rand has to say about anything is not much of a moral compass for me.

I can't back this claim up with statistics. However, it seems pretty obvious to me that the pathetic state that black people in America are in as far as illegitimacy rates and crime is a direct result of the Great Society. Common sense would also tell me that if you lose half your paycheck to taxes and also have to pay a mortgage, put food on the table and support your kids, there ain't going to be much left over for, say, your grandparents, let alone the poor people down the street. And of course, if a society is led to believe that the government will take care of you from the cradle to the grave if things go wrong, why would you duplicate that effort? I'm talking averages here, not any particular Mother Theresa.

Some of what you say is certainly true, especially in regard to mortgages. It has been widely acknowledged that the vast numbers of home owners in this country are to a large extent due to government policies that promoted home ownership above renting. But things are more complicated than the recent wingnut mantra "it was Teh Blacks" would suggest.

As for the distinction between people who need help and those who demand help: that distinction is certainly there. Unfortunately, it has been totally lost on the assholes (starting with Michelle Malkin) who decided to go after Graeme Frost and his parents (http://themoderatevoice.com/15509/the-war-against-graeme-frost-get-that-school-kid/). Those moochers, who tried to claim Michelle Malkin's product (whatever that is) by tears!

As for "duplicating the effort": how widespread, would you say, is the practice of not keeping a fire extinguisher in one's home, seeing as how the fire department is there?

Most of the people I knew who got homes they couldn't afford were white. Of course, this is observer bias, since I don't hang out with too many blacks or hispanics. Please don't imply that my argument is a racist one.

Graeme Frost's case reminds me of that National Lampoon cover, you know, "if you don't buy this magazine, we're gonna shoot this dog."

The fire extinguisher fills a niche that the fire department can't, that is, one of being immediately available. What niche can your personal charity fill that an all-providing government can't? Hell, they've got all kinds of people with Master's degrees employed full-time to determine how best to provide for any particular needy individual-they're called social workers. It's sort of hubris to think you can get a better insight into any particular case than they, right?

I never intended to imply that your argument was racist. I merely pointed out that the race issue was conveniently trotted out by the right as the whole Fannie and Freddie debacle was unfolding. In another comment below you say that blaming the suits and not the individuals is cheap populism, and I will agree with you there. However, blaming the individuals and claiming that the financial institutions were just doing what's in their nature (the whole frog and scorpion parable) is not something I would want to engage in either.

As for observer bias: almost everyone I knew in high school now owns a home in the 'burbs. I think I'm the only one who still rents. Then again, I'm the only one who decided to go into academia. Until college, I mostly hung out with other Russian immigrants, and there was definitely a well-defined set of social expectations out there: own a home, two cars, the usual blah-blah. It's interesting how quickly these social expectations were absorbed by the first-generation immigrants.

Finally, about the government and helping people. My own view is that the government should at least provide the absolute minimal safety net, but I don't advocate single-payer health care. If some rich guy wants to pay for access to the newest experimental treatments, there should be no barriers to that. I don't presume to make the case for an "all-providing government", by any means. But some minimal provisions must be there -- e.g., natural disaster relief.

(no subject)

wsobchak.livejournal.com - 2009-03-21 08:54 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

ygam.livejournal.com - 2009-03-22 00:04 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

wsobchak.livejournal.com - 2009-03-22 05:06 (UTC) - Expand

second-order supply side multiplier effects of marginal increases in labor costs

Хорошо!

By the way, isn't it ironic that the self-described John Galts of the financial industry are now joining the ranks of the "I'm fucked, give me yours" crowd? Interestingly, in Atlas Shrugged the financiers that only create paper wealth not backed up by anything are part of the problem.

I don't think the smug asshats of the financial industry ever portrayed themselves as John Galts. That's not the image I remember Bernie Madoff and Donald Trump projecting.

Maybe not explicitly, but they did (and continue to) view themselves as indispensable to the economy. They still continue to act as if without them the whole thing will grind to a halt. Hence all the posturing regarding bonuses for the assclowns at AIG.

What's that have to do with libertarianism or Ayn Rand? There were plenty of party officials in the soviet union who viewed themselves as indispensable to the economy-were they John Galt wannabes, too? Whenever you have an entrenched structure with uniforms and an elitist accessions system, middle and upper level management will always view themselves as indispensable, even if everything they do actually runs counter to the institution's stated goals.

What, indeed? Does the name "Rick Santelli" ring a bell?

I'm not a big fan of Jon Stewart because he's a glib jackass. The guys behind Santelli are guilty of nothing more than doing their jobs. I've met the guys Santelli is ranting about. They bought stuff they couldn't afford on their paycheck, hoping that through the audacity of hope they would be able to keep it and live like the people on TV. And now you and I are going to pay for this. Why is Santelli the object of your distaste?

Oh, I didn't need Jon Stewart to tell me about Santelli, I've got John Cole (http://www.balloon-juice.com) for that. The problem I've got with Santelli is exactly the same one I've got with the entire glibertarian, "fuck you, I've got mine" crowd: blanket contempt for everyone less fortunate than you. Are you comfortable making the claim that every single person currently finding himself in a dire financial situation is guilty of living beyond his means? You may have met plenty of guys Santelli is ranting about, and there are plenty of these guys out there. But are you sure that's the whole story? For some reason Santelli isn't really bothered by the fact that the taxes you and I pay are going to keep his Wall Street buddies afloat until they come up with some other fucked-up and wildly inaccurate model for pricing some other fucked-up financial "instruments". I guess you could say that those douchebags were guilty of nothing more than doing their jobs, right?

And as long as we're on the subject of Santelli and CNBC, you may think all you want of Jon Stewart, but he was quite right to call them on the fact that, while the above-mentioned douchebags were busy overleveraging themselves, Jim Cramer, Santelli and the other assclowns on CNBC were cheerleading what you've recently referred to as the "mass suspension of disbelief". If no one else is willing to call them on it, well, I'll take the glib jackass Stewart.

I don't need to make the claim that every single person currently finding himself in a dire financial situation is guilty of living beyond his means. Rather, it's incumbent upon these people to individually come to me and convince me that the situation they find themselves in is not their fault if they want some of my money. The burden of proof is on the beggar.

If you have a more accurate model for pricing, put it out there. I'm sure it will make you a lot of cash. Wall Street did what it could with what it had. I am against bailing out anybody, corporation or individual, and there seems to be a lot of arrogance on the corporate side. However, blaming suits and corporations and ignoring the role of individuals making idiotic personal financial decisions is cheap populism, and I won't play that game.

Cramer and Stewart are about equal in my book, and I'm not gonna cheer for either one. However, Stewart's arrogance really grates on me. He likes to have his cake and eat it too with the whole "look, pseudo-intellectual sociopolitical commentary! Whoa, don't call me out on my bullshit, I'm just an ENTERTAINER." Yeah, OK. Also, shallow cheesedick sarcasm might go over well in today's cultural environment, but it leads absolutely nowhere.

One last thing. I don't know how you make your money. Everything I have, I have earned either through training (which was mostly fun, sometimes incredibly unpleasant, and occasionally pure drudgery) or through deployments, where I put my cock'n'balls on the line almost every day and was responsible for the safety and health of my subordinates and accomplishing our mission. I have put all kind of stress on my body through parachute jumps, carrying an eighty pound ruck, jumping in and out of vehicles, kicking doors and climbing buildings with body armor on, breathing burning Iraqi waste, and so on. My back is fucked up enough that I have to do physical therapy twice a week for the rest of my life. I lost my two front teeth in training and now have implants. I am not complaining-I did all this willingly as have many others, and there have been a lot of people who gave much more. I would do it all over again if given the choice. I'm just saying that if you know some unfortunate who has a better claim to the money in my bank account than I do, please point them out to me.

I have earned either through training (which was mostly fun, sometimes incredibly unpleasant, and occasionally pure drudgery) or through deployments

In other words, you live the life of the socialist. All the money you've got was taken by the government from other people's taxes, and not a single cent of it was earned in a capitalist way. You certainly seem to think that your branch of the state socialism is very important for the society, and you may well be right, but it's really funny of you to speak about hating it when the government decides who to give money to, when you have all your money only because the government decided to give it to you.

Well, you've got half a point. The government, in its role as a representative of the people, signed a contract with me which involved me providing a certain set of services to it in exchange for a paycheck. They didn't just arbitrarily decide to give me some cash. These services not being granular (capable of being broken down to the individual level,) my paycheck comes out of other people's taxes. What I mean is, you can't just pay the army when Jaysh Al Mahdi or Al Qaeda shows up in your neighborhood and hangs your uncle off the corner Amoco.

Calling that socialist is kind of like calling the fire department socialist. Now, if you want to go ahead and make the argument that having a standing army is wrong and unconstitutional and push through a referendum abolishing it, that's cool. Then you can go ahead and pay me what a guy doing my job in the private sector gets, which is about $200K a year.