• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


anthony last won the day on December 12 2019

anthony had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

116 Excellent

1 Follower

About anthony

  • Rank
    tony garland

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Republic of South Africa

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
  • Description
    My all-time quote: "Man is a being of self-made soul."
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

19,033 profile views
  1. Monday, January 13, 2020 A case for socialism "I am against socialism, but this article and podcast give an informative, modern perspective on the views of people who approve of and even advocate socialism. I have wondered why so many young people favor socialism, what they believe it is, and why they hate capitalism so much. The audio interview is sort of long, near 100 minutes. I listened to over half, but skipped some parts. The person interviewed is Nathan Robinson, editor of Current Affairs, author, and a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders. He identifies as a libertarian socialist. He says that for many of its supporters socialism isn't about government ownership of the means of production (which Karl Marx advocated), or even any business being wholly owned by its employees. It's about power, democracy, and solidarity with the many less fortunate when a few others have so much wealth, income, and power. There is a segment starting around 46:00 about Bernie Sanders. He says Bernie Sanders has a "deep moral compass." Huh?? Echoing Ayn Rand, by what standard? There is no mention of his fascist* morality of government bullying and coercion. The sort of democracy they want is in effect a dictatorship by voters, a mobocracy. Of course, a small minority of politicians would do the legislating. *Fascist economics supported a state-controlled economy that accepted a mix of private and public ownership over the means of production. Industries must uphold the national interest as superior to private profit (link). State control is paramount for fascism and Sanders, and Sanders revels in berating profit. Robinson doesn't say so, but it seems to me that how much income governments take, how much they spend, and how much power they amass to bully and coerce other people doesn't bother them. I have not read his book, but peaked at it using Amazon's 'Look Inside' feature. It's fairly short, so requested it via inter-library loan. Based on what I saw inside, I will not buy it. He will not profit atmy expense. He is critical of profit several times in the book. I suspect he hasn't yet realized that workers' wages are profits, like I showed here. Anyway, reading about how capitalism works in his view -- an army of psychopathic androids -- and why I am wrong to oppose socialism -- he says every opponent is wrong -- should be worth a few chuckles. I expect another pied piper of socialism. That's alongside Bernie Sanders, Michael Moore, Larry Sanders, and many actors and actresses. Robinson is hypercritical of corporations at the start of Chapter 3. Does he believe what he says applies to his Current Affairs LLC? 😉 To nonprofit corporations? P.S. Shortly after writing the above, I saw this article from the Ayn Rand Institute. It's longer with more criticism of socialism. The spokesman for socialism is Bhaskar Sunkara. It includes the following about socialism's appeal to many people: "In the debates, Sunkara argues that socialism is the system that protects people’s “basic rights” to goods and services like health care, education, and nutrition. He also argues that workers should be given democratic control of the firms they staff by being given the right to elect their managers and receive a share of the profits. This, he says, is necessary to protect freedom from the “tyranny” in the workplace: from the “coercion” of having to take a job under terms set by others." Addenda 1/18/2020 A Wall Street Journal article (paywalled) includes the following: "Mr. Glaeser cites polling that suggests most young people’s vision of socialism might be better described as “hyperredistribution.” They don’t seek state control of the means of production, but punishing taxes on the rich to fund programs like free college for all. “They say, ‘Well, there are a whole bunch of projects—a whole bunch of government spending that helps old people. I want mine. If we’re going to spend a huge amount on Medicare, why aren’t we spending a whole lot on education for me?’ The obvious answer is that redistribution takes money out of the productive economy, which diminishes collective wealth over time. Young socialists dismiss that point, and equate capitalism with greed." [end] Another answer not in the article is that the elderly on Medicare and Social Security paid taxes to fund them for decades. A young college student doesn't have such a history". Merjet --- Good article. The "case for socialism" is all-dependent upon existing great wealth and future, ongoing production in a specific nation. Socialism needs capitalism. The 'makers' - think the socialists - will continue doing what they do, regardless, "somehow" - because they have to, they like doing it and are capable of doing it. iow, they enjoy being sacrificed. They "owe". (Anyway, *any* others can take over production and industry if they rebel. So the Marxist-socialists believe). Never do these socialist-utopian theorists ask themselves: why should the profit-makers carry on? What will happen when, inevitably, capital and creativity slowly start drying up (under even this "soft" form of socialism) and the innovators leave for better pastures? No answer, since they are people who have no idea of man's mind and don't want to know. But all the rest know that a harder socialism i.e., increasing gvment force, will become necessary to continue their fantasy of "hyperredistribution" to eke out the last remnants of wealth production. Ending very badly. On a small scale this is what I remember of Zimbabwe, and now I see the flight of able South Africans (of all races) - the looting will simply outweigh the production eventually, and all suffer. "Equality" is finally achieved in equal misery. (But about time the AR Institute woke up! Are they afraid that opposing socialism will have to mean supporting the president?)
  3. Caroline Glick's expert eye:
  4. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza could have had it all, and have never ceased to cut their noses to spite their faces. "The Three No's": No peace, no recognition, no negotiation - with Israel. The Khartoum Resolution. "Deal with the Jews!?"
  5. None in Gaza, some in West Bank, and all of the Golan. Spoils of war. "Land for peace" was refused ("common" knowledge too) to the Israelis by the PLO and PA, after several offers. and that's where things are stuck. Advise you not be taken in by deceitful pols who condemn Israel's existence to curry favor with Muslims - and Islamicists.
  6. A kind appraisal. But fraid not (seldom, and unless someone specifies only the settlements) The disingenuous statements by pols and many others shrewdly mask an opposition to the very existence of a Jewish homeland, as a whole. When pushed, she/he can claim Oh but I meant the settlements..!
  7. Ah man, very sad. Apparently a fine man and a great lyricist, you can see some philosophy and his sense of life, there. For all that he went off O'ism later on for libertarianism. "It is what it is..." Yes.
  8. Our friend Tat who is holidaying in NY made the trip to Toledo to be at the rally. Mad, of course - it's a pleasant summer in Johannesburg. Reported the "amazing logistics" before the event.
  9. That's going to dampen the belief of they who call "Trump, an unprincipled pragmatist, out for himself" etc. etc. He (and they) know fully that this action, and the possible "events to come", is not exactly fantastic for his re-election prospects. But he went ahead anyway. Therefore has placed the long term security of country over any ambitions. Upshot, I believe he will emerge stronger. (Not to rub salt and revive the past, but what if he'd told his advisers what someone once told another politician: Let's cool it until after the election when I'm in a better position...?) It is very much of interest to me, Peter. Not least because Israel's exposure. As important, defeating the Dems again is a must in my view, for the sake of the USA. I predicted some sort of incendiary actions by Iran in election year, to undermine the president: so make him either look weak or a war-monger. The only US party that Tehran wishes to deal with in future, and why, is too obvious to comment on.
  10. The neo-conservatism that many Objectivists have in the past (maybe still?) defaulted to, was the slide away from objective value in favour of intrinsic value/disvalue ( --i.e. "evil" by revelation.) I remember my shock by pronouncements by Peikoff and other O'ists to "nuke" Tehran, bomb that mosque, thinking I'd arrived on a neo-con site . That was 10 years ago, when I was new to the forums and blessedly innocent of internal rifts. Rand had the clearest idea of objective value and the nature of objective evil, which I believe was superficially imitated and mashed into the appearance of neo-conservatism. (This was the tussle between intrinsicist vs. subjective values which Kelley and Peikoff accused each other of when they "split". That breakup and the loss of Kelley's intellectual influence in ARI leaving the field to Leonard alone, i reckon has had effects until today. Now I wonder if many Arians, post Peikoff, haven't defaulted the other wrong way, to subjective value and subsequent Leftism). A statement Peter presented, by one Patrick Stephens "... I believe terrorists would still target America for its citizens' support of Israel". As well as being counterfactual, concrete bound and anti-conceptual, imo here's an example of having subjective values. Ditch Israel and the troublesome Jews and "they will love us", kinda. But it's an identical intrinsicism by Iranian leaders and terrorists, from which followed their hatred for anything and anybody Western (and Jewish). That's fixed and impossible to deal with reasonably..
  11. anthony


    to be continued. Party time. Happy New Year all.
  12. anthony


    You're seeking uniformity. Validated by scientific testing. Comes up sometimes, 'testing' artworks by consensus of opinions. None of those are "objective" in this sense. Obviously, as you've said, we all bring our own past experiences, thought and values to liking/disliking/neutral, about artworks. Because they involve a "subject" (oneself) doesn't make one's judgments subjective. Depends on how consistently objective one is in all areas. Nor necessarily, and often, are they to be taken as "perfect" evaluations. Before that. No.1. First Question: do you know what IT IS (which is being represented?) At least then you know what you think/feel about it. Identification precedes evaluation. (And this is not the artistic quality of a work, I'm talking about - that requires some better knowledge of art techniques to judge). Evaluation here, means: does what I see this image presents, elevate or diminish? Does this artist's view of existence enhance - or, oppose - man's life, mind and happiness? It may also be pretty humdrum and compromising. Yep, it's all *moral*, for the selfish good of the individual. Underneath it all, *everybody* privately knows this moral element, and that's why they follow the arts.
  13. anthony


    Nicely said. I agree all the way, until the last. Were all those "values, experiences, dreams", etc. a property of you? (Of "one"?) Were they real, have a particular nature and value-disvalue, which "you" were conscious of, to which you responded with emotions? Then they are as objective an existent as you and your mind is. If one subscribes to objectivity, anything without identity is non-objective. Everything with is objective. Art, made for others' eyes, minds and emotions, especially.
  14. anthony


    Objectivity in art: No.1 - can you see what it is? No.2 - did the artist know what he made? No.3 - was what he made important (for him)? No. 4- is it important to you?