Richism: The Self-Righteous Bigotry of the Wall Street Protestors

[Brant Gaede]

Well, shall we start over everybody? Is this a pile of poop or a pile of truth? My criticism is big usually has an advantage over small and wealth over poverty regardless. These things make any imbalances worse.

What is economic regulation? It is central control of business property by a dictatorship. The owners of the business can't actually dictate what they do with their own property. They aren't permitted to trade value for value without meddling by the dictatorship. This is Ayn Rand's definition of fascism. The aspect I'm highlighting here is that it's also "one neck ready for one leash" corporatism. And of course we all know -- or should know -- that fascism and corporatism go hand in hand.

Regulatory burden on the market is a more severe hit on weak and small businesses than on big ones. This makes as such regulation a de facto prop to big business. Now, occasionally, they purposefully lighten the burden on small business in order to prevent killing them altogether (e.g., employment law is written in terms of businesses over so many employees vs. under so many), but that's a pragmatic affair and only blunts the pain to a limited degree. Without these pragmatic hacks we'd see an even worse tendency toward bigger and bigger business.

Shayne

And small businesses are much more important than big corporations in providing optimum employment levels in this economy we have right now.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

All and all, Shayne has the overall advantage so far--for the simple reason the U.S. is seriously knocking on the door of an overtly fascist state. But when Shayne calls people names the arguments get obscured or go off the tracks and a valuable thread becomes trite. That's why I quoted his old post--to reset this thing, which has little to do with the thread started by Dennis. So what the heck?

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

It's such a fascist hardship not to have the "freedom" to invent any type of financial instrument one can dream up and sell it to the "free" people. We've never seen a problem with this, have we??

Yup, if anyone in this thread is advocating "fascism", it is Shayne. He proposes ownership with no control for outside shareholders. How ironic.

I don't get this. If there is no control for outside shareholders and that is a value to them who made them invest?

--Brant

Yes, good question. And there's tons of good questions. Perhaps caveat emptor on this one...perhaps. But what about corporations that dilute their equity, essentially selling more than 100% of their equity over multiple sales (been done many times) and screwing the initial investors? Illegal? Who cares? Caveat emptor? Let "freedom" reign?

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

You should man up to the fact that you are advocating a mixed economy which Rand stated was unstable likely degenerating into fascism. Or, that you are a conservative and I have to wonder why you think people such as Shayne and I would find that tolerable reference this subject? We don't have to deal with your "compelling arguments" for your ad hoc positions, only that they add up to a noxious intellectual stew. If society moves in principle toward more and more freedom those "compelling arguments" can be dealt with on a practical basis as they arise or simply bypassed to be dealt with later. In WWII this was called "island hopping." When the U.S. seized control of Tinian and Iwo Jima all hell descended on fascist Japan while the "compelling" argument for the existence of Japanese controlled Rabul meant shit.

--Brant

we are at war, you know?--you know?

Brant, I have no problem 'manning up' to anything. Wherever I may fall onto the label spectrum, so be it. But what I try to do is let reason and reality discover my positions and fall where they may, with as much of an open mind as possible.

What seems to be adding up to "noxious intellectual stew" for you is the fact that there's obvious clashes with reality between whatever exalted political label you wish to uphold, and the obvious real world.

What's ironic is that my take on Rand is that she was so blinded by her politics (hatred of her communist origins) that she consciously or unconsciously worked backwards from politics into philosophy. Your offense to my political positions, real or imagined, is just throwing you into emotional state where you won't admit to obvious facts "in principal".

"Rand stated was unstable likely degenerating into fascism"

I don't care what Rand stated about a mixed economy. Her economics are nonsense. She also said something like " there can be no conflict between one person's rational interests and another's"

I mean, c'mon, this is laughable. But a better question is why she said this. I think that if she didn't, then her politics falls apart. Couldn't have that!

Maybe this is the difference between reading her as an adult vs youth?

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

for the simple reason the U.S. is seriously knocking on the door of an overtly fascist state.

Sure, perhaps, but not for the reasons Shayne argues. The worst fallacious argument in the world still might be true.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

You should man up to the fact that you are advocating a mixed economy which Rand stated was unstable likely degenerating into fascism. Or, that you are a conservative and I have to wonder why you think people such as Shayne and I would find that tolerable reference this subject? We don't have to deal with your "compelling arguments" for your ad hoc positions, only that they add up to a noxious intellectual stew. If society moves in principle toward more and more freedom those "compelling arguments" can be dealt with on a practical basis as they arise or simply bypassed to be dealt with later. In WWII this was called "island hopping." When the U.S. seized control of Tinian and Iwo Jima all hell descended on fascist Japan while the "compelling" argument for the existence of Japanese controlled Rabul meant shit.

--Brant

we are at war, you know?--you know?

Brant, I have no problem 'manning up' to anything. Wherever I may fall onto the label spectrum, so be it. But what I try to do is let reason and reality discover my positions and fall where they may, with as much of an open mind as possible.

What seems to be adding up to "noxious intellectual stew" for you is the fact that there's obvious clashes with reality between whatever exalted political label you wish to uphold, and the obvious real world.

What's ironic is that my take on Rand is that she was so blinded by her politics (hatred of her communist origins) that she consciously or unconsciously worked backwards from politics into philosophy. Your offense to my political positions, real or imagined, is just throwing you into emotional state where you won't admit to obvious facts "in principal". Very Randian.

"Rand stated was unstable likely degenerating into fascism"

I don't care what Rand stated about a mixed economy. Her economics are nonsense. She also said something like " there can be no conflict between one person's rational interests and another's"

I mean, c'mon, this is laughable. But a better question is why she said this. I think that if she didn't, then her politics falls apart. Couldn't have that!

Maybe this is the difference between reading her as an adult vs youth?

Bob

[sjw]

What's ironic is that my take on Rand is that she was so blinded by her politics (hatred of her communist origins) that she consciously or unconsciously worked backwards from politics into philosophy. Your offense to my political positions, real or imagined, is just throwing you into emotional state where you won't admit to obvious facts "in principal". Very Randian.

"Rand stated was unstable likely degenerating into fascism"

I don't care what Rand stated about a mixed economy. Her economics are nonsense. She also said something like " there can be no conflict between one person's rational interests and another's"

I mean, c'mon, this is laughable.

Revealing. Thanks for that post.

Rand was a moralist. She didn't see things primarily in economic terms but in terms of rights. This is the only proper way to frame these economic issues.

Shayne

[bmacwilliam]

Rand was a moralist. She didn't see things primarily in economic terms but in terms of rights.

Fine.

This is the only proper way to frame these economic issues.

Except in the real world.

[Brant Gaede]

You should man up to the fact that you are advocating a mixed economy which Rand stated was unstable likely degenerating into fascism. Or, that you are a conservative and I have to wonder why you think people such as Shayne and I would find that tolerable reference this subject? We don't have to deal with your "compelling arguments" for your ad hoc positions, only that they add up to a noxious intellectual stew. If society moves in principle toward more and more freedom those "compelling arguments" can be dealt with on a practical basis as they arise or simply bypassed to be dealt with later. In WWII this was called "island hopping." When the U.S. seized control of Tinian and Iwo Jima all hell descended on fascist Japan while the "compelling" argument for the existence of Japanese controlled Rabul meant shit.

--Brant

we are at war, you know?--you know?

Brant, I have no problem 'manning up' to anything. Wherever I may fall onto the label spectrum, so be it. But what I try to do is let reason and reality discover my positions and fall where they may, with as much of an open mind as possible.

What seems to be adding up to "noxious intellectual stew" for you is the fact that there's obvious clashes with reality between whatever exalted political label you wish to uphold, and the obvious real world.

What's ironic is that my take on Rand is that she was so blinded by her politics (hatred of her communist origins) that she consciously or unconsciously worked backwards from politics into philosophy. Your offense to my political positions, real or imagined, is just throwing you into emotional state where you won't admit to obvious facts "in principal". Very Randian.

"Rand stated was unstable likely degenerating into fascism"

I don't care what Rand stated about a mixed economy. Her economics are nonsense. She also said something like " there can be no conflict between one person's rational interests and another's"

I mean, c'mon, this is laughable. But a better question is why she said this. I think that if she didn't, then her politics falls apart. Couldn't have that!

Maybe this is the difference between reading her as an adult vs youth?

Bob

There are all kinds of criticisms Rand is open to, but not for advocating freedom in all matters of human social being. That that is the objective is there for clarity. We're never going to get there but that's not the purpose of a "city on a hill." Please focus on the fact that the freedom train is rolling backwards down that hill and we are deteriorating into a fascist economic-political crash. All your ad hoc representations are trivial to that. You talk as if you've no philosophy at all and advocate whatever you feel like or pragmatism of some sort. Philosophy needs empiricism and empiricism needs philosophy, but not by your lights. Ba'al denigrates philosophy too, but he's up front about it. Didn't Shayne accuse you of being a troll here? Are you? Absent representing a philosophy of some sort up front, you are just that.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

You should man up to the fact that you are advocating a mixed economy which Rand stated was unstable likely degenerating into fascism. Or, that you are a conservative and I have to wonder why you think people such as Shayne and I would find that tolerable reference this subject? We don't have to deal with your "compelling arguments" for your ad hoc positions, only that they add up to a noxious intellectual stew. If society moves in principle toward more and more freedom those "compelling arguments" can be dealt with on a practical basis as they arise or simply bypassed to be dealt with later. In WWII this was called "island hopping." When the U.S. seized control of Tinian and Iwo Jima all hell descended on fascist Japan while the "compelling" argument for the existence of Japanese controlled Rabul meant shit.

--Brant

we are at war, you know?--you know?

Brant, I have no problem 'manning up' to anything. Wherever I may fall onto the label spectrum, so be it. But what I try to do is let reason and reality discover my positions and fall where they may, with as much of an open mind as possible.

What seems to be adding up to "noxious intellectual stew" for you is the fact that there's obvious clashes with reality between whatever exalted political label you wish to uphold, and the obvious real world.

What's ironic is that my take on Rand is that she was so blinded by her politics (hatred of her communist origins) that she consciously or unconsciously worked backwards from politics into philosophy. Your offense to my political positions, real or imagined, is just throwing you into emotional state where you won't admit to obvious facts "in principal". Very Randian.

"Rand stated was unstable likely degenerating into fascism"

I don't care what Rand stated about a mixed economy. Her economics are nonsense. She also said something like " there can be no conflict between one person's rational interests and another's"

I mean, c'mon, this is laughable. But a better question is why she said this. I think that if she didn't, then her politics falls apart. Couldn't have that!

Maybe this is the difference between reading her as an adult vs youth?

Bob

There are all kinds of criticisms Rand is open to, but not for advocating freedom in all matters of human social being. That that is the objective is there for clarity. We're never going to get there but that's not the purpose of a "city on a hill." Please focus on the fact that the freedom train is rolling backwards down that hill and we are deteriorating into a fascist economic-political crash. All your ad hoc representations are trivial to that. You talk as if you've no philosophy at all and advocate whatever you feel like or pragmatism of some sort. Philosophy needs empiricism and empiricism needs philosophy, but not by your lights. Ba'al denigrates philosophy too, but he's up front about it. Didn't Shayne accuse you of being a troll here? Are you? Absent representing a philosophy of some sort up front, you are just that.

--Brant

Penn Jillette said it well. Something like "I agree with a lot of Rands ideas, but she was a fucking whackjob."

Presumably, he doesn't agree with her completely, neither do I.

"Absent representing a philosophy of some sort up front, you are just that."

Really? Without a label, I'm only a troll?

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

Rand was a moralist. She didn't see things primarily in economic terms but in terms of rights.

Fine.

This is the only proper way to frame these economic issues.

Except in the real world.

Your "real world" has no morality, just bathtub economics? If so, let me award you first prize, which is a fur-lined bathtub. You can't use water, of course, for water is morality in this metaphorical structure--fucks up the fur.

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

Please focus on the fact that the freedom train is rolling backwards down that hill and we are deteriorating into a fascist economic-political crash.

Honestly, I probably should be more sensitive to this. I mean that sincerely, but I am not one of the 'we' on the train. I'm not American. My country would certainly suffer in a global crisis, no-one is immune, but we seem to be weathering the storm much better and the future doesn't look bleak at all. In fact, we have a right-wing majority government with an Economist as the leader that seems to be moving (albeit slowly) in a good direction. We have in some ways always been more free (and in some ways less) than the US. Even in the midst of a financial mess elsewhere, I've never felt more optimistic about my country

You talk as if you've no philosophy at all and advocate whatever you feel like or pragmatism of some sort.

Truth. That's what I seek, nothing more, nothing less.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

You should man up to the fact that you are advocating a mixed economy which Rand stated was unstable likely degenerating into fascism. Or, that you are a conservative and I have to wonder why you think people such as Shayne and I would find that tolerable reference this subject? We don't have to deal with your "compelling arguments" for your ad hoc positions, only that they add up to a noxious intellectual stew. If society moves in principle toward more and more freedom those "compelling arguments" can be dealt with on a practical basis as they arise or simply bypassed to be dealt with later. In WWII this was called "island hopping." When the U.S. seized control of Tinian and Iwo Jima all hell descended on fascist Japan while the "compelling" argument for the existence of Japanese controlled Rabul meant shit.

--Brant

we are at war, you know?--you know?

Brant, I have no problem 'manning up' to anything. Wherever I may fall onto the label spectrum, so be it. But what I try to do is let reason and reality discover my positions and fall where they may, with as much of an open mind as possible.

What seems to be adding up to "noxious intellectual stew" for you is the fact that there's obvious clashes with reality between whatever exalted political label you wish to uphold, and the obvious real world.

What's ironic is that my take on Rand is that she was so blinded by her politics (hatred of her communist origins) that she consciously or unconsciously worked backwards from politics into philosophy. Your offense to my political positions, real or imagined, is just throwing you into emotional state where you won't admit to obvious facts "in principal". Very Randian.

"Rand stated was unstable likely degenerating into fascism"

I don't care what Rand stated about a mixed economy. Her economics are nonsense. She also said something like " there can be no conflict between one person's rational interests and another's"

I mean, c'mon, this is laughable. But a better question is why she said this. I think that if she didn't, then her politics falls apart. Couldn't have that!

Maybe this is the difference between reading her as an adult vs youth?

Bob

There are all kinds of criticisms Rand is open to, but not for advocating freedom in all matters of human social being. That that is the objective is there for clarity. We're never going to get there but that's not the purpose of a "city on a hill." Please focus on the fact that the freedom train is rolling backwards down that hill and we are deteriorating into a fascist economic-political crash. All your ad hoc representations are trivial to that. You talk as if you've no philosophy at all and advocate whatever you feel like or pragmatism of some sort. Philosophy needs empiricism and empiricism needs philosophy, but not by your lights. Ba'al denigrates philosophy too, but he's up front about it. Didn't Shayne accuse you of being a troll here? Are you? Absent representing a philosophy of some sort up front, you are just that.

--Brant

Penn Jillette said it well. Something like "I agree with a lot of Rands ideas, but she was a fucking whackjob."

Presumably, he doesn't agree with her completely, neither do I.

"Absent representing a philosophy of some sort up front, you are just that."

Really? Without a label, I'm only a troll?

Bob

You keep ignoring the real issue: freedom versus fascism. If you're not a troll then you're overtly dishonest or profoundly ignorant.

--Brant

as for P and T, the little one is obviously the brains behind the operation--at least we know it isn't the other guy

[Brant Gaede]

Please focus on the fact that the freedom train is rolling backwards down that hill and we are deteriorating into a fascist economic-political crash.

Honestly, I probably should be more sensitive to this. I mean that sincerely, but I am not one of the 'we' on the train. I'm not American. My country would certainly suffer in a global crisis, no-one is immune, but we seem to be weathering the storm much better and the future doesn't look bleak at all. In fact, we have a right-wing majority government with an Economist as the leader that seems to be moving (albeit slowly) in a good direction. We have in some ways always been more free (and in some ways less) than the US. Even in the midst of a financial mess elsewhere, I've never felt more optimistic about my country

You talk as if you've no philosophy at all and advocate whatever you feel like or pragmatism of some sort.

Truth. That's what I seek, nothing more, nothing less.

Bob

I hope you find it--soon; I'm doing all I can on your behalf--Canada is lucky it's not bordered by any other country, especially Mexico.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

for the simple reason the U.S. is seriously knocking on the door of an overtly fascist state.

Sure, perhaps, but not for the reasons Shayne argues. The worst fallacious argument in the world still might be true.

Bob

You don't know this? If you don't there is no contra Shayne in this post for you're not explaining yourself.

All fallacious arguments are false. That's why they're fallacious. The conclusion might be true. I assume that's what you meant. In light of that I welcome your non-fallacious argument to that truth.

--Brant

Canada: good medicine is south of the border--I wonder why

[sjw]

Didn't Shayne accuse you of being a troll here? Are you? Absent representing a philosophy of some sort up front, you are just that.

--Brant

Actually I said he was a fascist troll.

Anyone who defends fascism is a fascist, whether they admit it to themselves or not.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Didn't Shayne accuse you of being a troll here? Are you? Absent representing a philosophy of some sort up front, you are just that.

--Brant

Actually I said he was a fascist troll.

Anyone who defends fascism is a fascist, whether they admit it to themselves or not.

Shayne

That's something of a stretch. I don't think it's productive to refine and define the discussion that way. You leave him saying, "I am not a fascist" instead of dealing with your non-ad hominem arguments. Naturally he won't say that. He'll just do all he can to bitch slap you with other means resulting in a thread three to four times the length it needs to be and turning readers off from reading you in the first place whatever place you appear in. You are the single most abrasive poster on OL. When you first came here you were horrible, then you toned it way down, but have gradually ramped it back up. That, more than the actual quality of your arguments as such has made you, I suspect, a small audience.

--Brant

[sjw]

That's something of a stretch.

It's not a stretch. A spade's a spade. Why do you think there is so much fascism if it's not because of fascists?

An environment where you can't call a spade a spade is conducive to only one thing: evil. So that's why we have so many politeness-mongers running amok. Note how much politeness-mongering there is in the Federalized public education system. Everyone's opinion counts, and you're just supposed to politely entertain vile nonsense. Bob is OK with threatening two parties in a consensual transaction with deadly force. He may not be aware that that's what he's doing, but that's not my issue, it's his (I think he is quite aware actually). He points a gun and tells people what they can and can't do, according to his own ignorant opinions on what the standard ought to be, ignoring a proper standard based on individual rights. I see this in a flash from his sputtering and am outraged by it. You should be too.

When the human race finally grows up, then tyranny will be quelled. And it will be kept at bay by sternly calling a spade a spade. It won't be kept at bay by being nice and polite to it. You think I'm apoplectic as a character trait, when really the issue is that I'm responding to matters that should rile any actually rights-respecting person up. I'm only different in that I actually have a deep respect for rights, I can see the long-term beneficial consequences of respecting rights and the insidious harm of violating them. I respond to injustice in kind.

So I've explained why righteous indignation is virtuous. Please explain why you think it's not.

Shayne

[sjw]

Politeness is a virtue when people deal in terms of reason. When they threaten initiation of force or justify the initiation of force, then they've crossed the line. They started the incivility, and it is uncivil to return politeness to them when in fact they are criminals or apologists of criminals.

So my view Brant is that you are the one who is not being civil here.

Shayne

[sjw]

Also Brant, you should be lecturing GHS about civility, not me. He brazenly proceeds in bad faith, whereas I consistently deal in terms of rational argument. And then I point this out, and I am gagged. And yet you're mad at me because I call a spade a spade.

Shayne

[Selene]

Such a racist!

<<<<<<YOU SPADE YOU...YOU...

[sjw]

I have no idea what you are talking about Selene. Regarding my use of this phrase, neither it seems does Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia....a_spade_a_spade

Edit: I stand somewhat corrected regarding the last para of this.

Shayne

[Selene]

I have no idea what you are talking about Selene. Regarding my use of this phrase, neither it seems does Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia....a_spade_a_spade

Shayne

Shayne:

And the fact that you responded in the way you did makes me feel all the more sad for you.

I am fully aware of the cliche of calling a spade a spade.

The sense of humor that you are devoid of does not allow you to get the joke which is sad. Your wiring is too tight Shayne. You need to relax a little.

Adam

[sjw]

Selene, I think you're blaming me for your poor sense of humor and taste. If you want to know what kind of humor makes me laugh, here's a sample:

Shayne

[Selene]

Selene, I think you're blaming me for your poor sense of humor and taste. If you want to know what kind of humor makes me laugh, here's a sample:

Shayne

One of my favorites.