Fiat currencies are not backed by a commodity. Fiat just means "let it become", "let it be done", "it shall be" (i.e. "backed" by government decree rather than by a commodity)
Bitcoin is not tied to any government or law and therefore cannot be a fiat currency.
I'm not sure why you think "pretty thing/art medium" counts as being useful. I could say that bitcoin is useful to because some people derive pleasure from knowing the answers to useless math problems.
You can make things that are the same color as gold. Why is it important that things actually be made of gold? It is only because it is a status symbol because of it's rarity. Gold's most useful feature is it's rarity. Bitcoins are rare too. Things don't need to be physical to be rare. Maybe everyone will decide not to want bitcoins anymore and they will be worthless. Maybe someday everyone will decide they don't want gold anymore. We don;t need bitcoins or gold. This is in contrast to real commodities like water and food that we can;t one day decide we just don;t really want anymore.
This is a pretty good analogy. I would say that someone who took the time to write you a note explaining that they closed your door for you is probably not someone looking to steal all your stuff. A malicious person would want to expend the least amount of energy for the most gain, and leave the least amount of evidence of tampering to reduce the risk of getting caught. Writing you a note explain the situation to the vulnerable really doesn't benefit a malicious person, especially if they are not trying to extort you or something like that.
It's next to impossible to know what DD-WRT version/build/release to install on anything.
It's certainly not easy. It's clearly a mess. I wouldn't say it's "next to impossible". I spent about an hour figuring out what I needed to do, after installing a version suggested by the selection tool (that did not work very well).
you can pretend that the tea party shut down the government, but you can't stop more and more people from waking up to the realization of that being total bullshit.
I said it was irrelevant. It doesn't matter who shut it down. The tea party was the one bragging about shutting it down, and then backed off when it seemed unpopular. But like I said. It's meaningless. And no I don't get my news form CNN or Fox, I don't have cable.
Why is every single tea party politician in the republican party?
the majority of the tea party movement doesn't concern itself with marriage because there are much bigger fish to fry... the government shouldn't be involved in deciding who can marry and who can't. the media focus on people who claim to be tea party followers talking about marriage are likely plants, and reporting by CNN and Fox is basically all propaganda.
There is bigger fish to fry than equal rights for people? There is literally no bigger fish to fry for a real libertarian.
the tea party continually highlight fiscal responsibility, sound money, putting a stop of empire building, renewing friendly trade ties with other nations, increasing government transparency and personal privacy, etc.
They highlight the freedoms that serve them, and downlplay the freedoms that don't. I am well aware.
Fox and CNN will do anything they can to keep voters eyes off the ball, and for many (including yourself apparently) it is working.
Your opinions are claims that can be verified to be false. You can have an opinion that the holocaust was a hoax, but that doesn't make you immune to accusations that you are a liar or ignorant. You don't get to simply call your claims opinions, and magically become immune to the truth.
My opinion is that you are a liar and/or willfully ignorant because you have no regard for the truth.
By "leadership" I am not talking about middle management of congressmen. I am talking about their bosses (the people who bought and paid for them). I am talking about the people who fund both the republican party and the tea party.
why do you think we keep seeing internet regulation bills come up in congress?
Because the government likes to regulate things?
tea party candidates are winning elections, pushing other republican and democrat candidates out... and their buddies are afraid it will happen to them
Because they are politicians that will say and do anything to be popular with whatever people what at any given time.
why do you think during the 2012 republican primary there were entire electorates excluded from the vote because they were full of ron paul supporters?
I don't know what you are referring to
why do you think Fox and CNN repeatedly launch personal attacks on tea party and libertarian supporters and candidates because they're afraid of giving their political views any more publicity than they are already garnering on the internet?
Fox doesn't really launch personal attacks on tea party candidates anymore. They are supporters of the tea party since 2008 when it was co-opted by the republican party. Libertarians (being different than both the tea party and the libertarian party) are a different story.
why do you think bitcoin has gained traction?
Because it's new and cool like ipads
tea party and libertarian supporters already know that CNN, Fox, etc are full of shit,...
Why do you keep lumping libertarians and tea party people together?
I agree that the people in power do not want libertarianism to spread. This is why they attempted and successfully co-opted the tea party and turned it into just a crazier version of the republican party, and something they can actually control and use to their advantage.
Yes libertarianism is a great idea that needs to spread. The tea party was a real grass roots movement that is 100% co-opted and serves the interests of billionaires that are funding them.
So where's the quote of my words that indicates my willingness to do it? That's what you need to show your own honesty. You can't do it can you?
I basically spent the entire thread correcting misinformation that you are spreading. I don't think it would be productive to copy+paste the entire thread.
So how about a few concrete examples:
You said Ayn Rand is opposed to any form of government.
You said Ayn Rand advocating living in small tribal groups.
You said "shrugging" according to Ayn Rand was doing a job poorly.
All of these are false. I asserted that they were false, and you just went on to the next bit if misinformation without contesting or conceding my assertion. This to me indicates a willingness on your part to spread misinformation. If you know it's false, then you are a liar. If you don't care, it makes you willfully ignorant.
The leadership is not afraid. The leadership is making millions of dollars by selling power to corporations and selling fear to their followers. Are republicans frustrated that Obama is a secret muslim born in kenya? Or do they fear that a secret muslim from kenya occupies the highest position in the government? The way Fox News portrays what is happening in this country, if you believe them, you *should* be afraid. We are a great world power that is about to completely fall apart. Is this a reason to be frustrated or afraid? American exceptionalism is threatened. Our entire way of life is threatened. Should we be frustrated that we are going to be subservient to the chinese due to our death spiral into socialism or should we be afraid?
Maybe the people who just want to pay no income tax can see through the fear mongering and just want a bigger house or a new car. But the majority of people watching Fox, think this is real, and they are fucking scared.
i don't think so... i think fear is the tool of the republican and democrat parties
I agree with this, but I would add that the tea party *is* the republican party (or at least a wing of it) at this point.
the tea party and the libertarian movements are increasing in popularity because they cut through the fear mongering by the duopoly
The tea party is way far removed from being libertarian at this point. There is almost nothing libertarian about it anymore.
the only fear that the tea party instills is in republican and democratic politicians who fear losing their power
I don't doubt that republicans fear losing their power to other republicans.
the tea party (like libertarians) isn't really left or right... it's just anti-big government
It takes more to be a libertarian than to just be anti-big government. Republicans are anti-big government too.
there are anarchists in the tea party, but the majority understands that government has a limited role to play in national defence (opposed to military interventionism and empire building) and some other things. there are different ideas, but that's healthy in any party and shouldn't be feared.
Do they understand that freedom actually trumps their conception of traditional American values as well? Do they understand that freedom means *not* defining marriage to be between one man and one woman? Do they understand that the freedom to decide what goes into your own body trumps their desire not to live in a drug free society? Do they understand that prostitution is a mutual agreement between adults free to make their own choices?
libertarians (the real ones) understand this. Teabaggers (i.e. republicans do not).
all the propaganda about the tea party shutting down government and threatening US default is just that... propaganda, and if anyone looks beyond what they see on Fox and CNN it's pretty obvious that the tea party is not the problem
The tea party is not the *only* problem. The tea party (i.e. Republicans) were responsible for shutting down the government. But this was just a poorly calculated political move. Ultimately it was completely meaningless. It's just another case of the minority party being obstructionist while the other party is in power. same old story.
No I'm suggesting that if something is flawed it's OK to point out the flaws.
You are not pointing out real flaws. You are inventing your own flaws to point out. I have pointed out the flaws that you have made and you just ignore them and apparently don't feel the need to even pretend to be intellectually honest.
Your bit about lying is very insulting and childish.
I find the fact that you have no reservations about lying (or at least being willfully ignorant) to be insulting and childish.
So what you are saying is that if something is flawed, then it is ok to lie about it? Can I say that Hitler killed a billion Chinese people? It doesn't matter if it is not true, because he was a bad guy? It's ok to lie as long as it's for a good cause? Don't you have any respect for the truth?
With respect there are much better things to read than ranting polemics
That is definitely true.
written by people with very little experience or understanding of what they are ranting against.
Which is exactly what you are doing to Ayn Rand in this thread. You are criticizing positions that you incorrectly attribute to her. You are criticizing books you haven't read. You don;t even need to read her books. You could just read wikipedia articles on ayn rand, atlas shrugged and objectivism to know that much of what you have said about her and her point of view is misinformed.
Yes there are better things you can read with your time than atlas shrugged. It is by far not a great work of literature. But I think you should read it if you are going to attempt to criticize it.
Or any other form of government. She isn't just down on communism which is why her work is laughed at. It's pushing very small tribal groups instead of any sort of organised form of society - so my "hermits" bit is not really that accurate because the "hermits" have families and a small circle of friends.
I wouldn't say she was against any form of government. I'm pretty sure she viewed a central government as the only legitimate means of protecting rights and enforcing the rule of law. She was opposed to anarchism. She even supported government enforcement of patents and copyrights as a means to drive innovation. So the claim that she is opposed to government in general is just false.
One thing that really gets me is the shrugged bit itself. Instead of the choice of doing a job or not there is the pretence of a third choice, shrugging, doing the job in such a useless way that everyone wished you didn't do it at all. It's shallow sociopathic bullshit and if Stalin had paid someone to come to the US and write stuff to divide the place I doubt he couldn't have got better results. Instead Rand did it for free - living off US welfare while railing against it and the system that kept her alive.
I feel like you didn't actually read this book. The "shrugging" is not analogous to doing a half ass job as you said. It was actually about opting out entirely and not participating in a corrupt system. So of your 3 choices, shrugging was closest to just not doing your job at all. The book actually drones on quite a bit about how you should either strive for excellence in whatever you do. If you choose not to do your job as in the case of many characters in the book, it should be with some purpose rather than out of laziness or apathy.
I really think you should just read the book. You won't agree with everything. I know I certainly didn't, but I think you will find that it is not what you think it is. If you only watched the movies, I think you are actually losing a lot of what was in the book. The plot is still there, but the long speeches and nuanced conversations are pretty much boiled down to a few sentences. This is probably the right way to make a movie, but it is no longer really a defense of objectivism. Also, I wouldn't say the movies are particularly good.
All costs spent are detailed. you can see for yourself.
Send me a link. I'm willing to read it.
one issue I do have is the fact that michelle and the kids and the president tend to take different planes, at a cost of millions to the tax payer when they go away. I wont argue whether or not they should be going away as much as they do but traveling on different modes of transportation costs us millions in extra every year
I have noticed a common trend among the right wing media, where they will cite facts (some true some false), about Obama which seem alarming, but when you actually do some research it turns out that these facts are either basically common to all presidents, misleading, or just not true.
I might have a problem with excessive costs of security for presidents in general. Is there any data to suggest that Obama is wasting drastically more money on security and transport for his family than past presidents?
You seem to forget that the libertarians started the tea party movement,
I didn;t forget that at all. Here is a quote from another comment I made in this thread
[In regards to being for limited government] This is 100% true. They were actually anti-bush. Fox News would routinely denounce them as lunatics. That all changed once Obama was elected. Once the target of anti-government sentiment was directed against a democrat, then Fox News and the Koch brothers could get behind them. Once Sarah Palin became the figurehead of the tea party, anyone with half a brain left. Even the Libertarian party is no co-opted by republicans. Bob Barr? Wayne Allen Root? seriously?
But seriously, the media likes to spout out the racism card as you just did, dont fall into that trap. yes there are members of the tea party that are racist, but there are people in EVERY group who are racist.
I agree that the tea party is not a group that advocates racism, and this is a valid distinction to be made with groups like the KKK, etc, and I don't want to insinuate that it is. My assertion is more that their movement seems to be driven by fear. This fear is fostered by the Republican party and conservative interest groups and media. One very prevalent fear is that sort of underlies a lot of the rhetoric that is actually explicit is that "traditional America" is being eroded by socialism and the people who benefit from socialism, lazy people (i.e. minorities with different values), and people who would disrupt the traditional family values (e.g. gay people, people who want to legalize drugs and prostitution, etc).
The tea party may kick out overtly racist people from public gatherings, because nobody wants to be associated with overt racism, but they sure do benefit from the sort of racism that my grandparents generation seems to have (i.e. the kind that comes up in private). I know an old lady who was robbed by a black man in her home, and she is now convinced that this is related to Obama ruining the social fabric of America. This is exactly the kind of mindset Fox News wants you to be in, without saying it in public.
And by no means am I saying that this kind of racism is unique to the tea party. It is fully present in the republican party proper and in the democratic party. I don;t doubt that many people vote for minority politicians because of a fear that rich white men will not work in the best interests of minorities.
What I am contrasting this to, is not the left version of the tea party. What I am contrasting this to, is the actual libertarian ideology which tends to be much more intellectual. Rather than being based on fear, it is based on principles of autonomy, free association, etc. It is unequivocally for legalization of drugs (the right to your own body/autonomy), the legalization of prostitution and gay/plural marriage (right of free association). It is not that libertarians like drugs and prostitution (although some probably do), and all forms of adult marriage, it is that their guiding principles lead them to the conclusion that these should not be illegal.
I will also clarify that I think the left has an equally intellectual contingent as well. Many of my best friends I would put in this category. What I am asserting is that both the left and the right also have their dumb reactionary racist dear mongering contingents, and on the right this is called the tea party.
I know that you did but I disagree and think those examples are a bit of a stretch on the part of advocates to try to justify the underlying message.
I am not an Ayn Rand advocate. I think the best criticism of her that I have ever heard is the following "Her original parts of her philosophy suck, and the good parts of her philosophy are unoriginal". I think the "selfishness" part of her philosophy falls under the category of unoriginal but correct.
To me it is not even a question of "should we be selfish?". Everyone already is selfish on some level. People who donate time and money to charity because it makes them feel good are selfish. People who are loyal friends are selfish because they expect loyalty in return. There is no such thing as true altruism, because if there were really no benefit (or perceived benefit) to an action, then there is no reason to do it.
What Ayn Rand is saying is that we shouldn't pretend that this is not who we are. We shouldn't pretend that we are ever 100% selfless. It doesn't even make sense to be. Rather than feeling guilty about it and shaming others for it, we need a more mature and realistic model of altruism/selfishness.
There needs to be a way to distinguish somebody who does something positive like donating to charity because it makes them feel good, with somebody who exploits poor people in order to get money to buy luxury items that makes them feel good.
Most people will call the person who exploits poor people selfish and the person who donates to charity altruistic. Ayn Rand chooses to call the person who donates to charity selfish (i.e. a rational self interested person) and the person who exploits the poor a looter (i.e. a person who's self interest is irrational). In this respect I think she was being deliberately sensationalistic. As I said, it is easy to look at this and say, "Ayn Rand advocates selfishness", but this is only if you ignore the fact that Ayn Rands version of selfishness (while not exactly generosity by most people's standards), is certainly not what they would consider selfishness.
What I have read of her work was juvenile selfishness, ranting against democracy, and a whole lot of magical stuff happening to characters for no reason as the universe gifted them with things, presumably because they were special. The latter is fine so long as people don't try to pretend it's anything more than fiction, but that's the problem isn't it?
There are probably a hundred examples in her books of people behaving in an essentially generous or at least civically responsible manner, but give a "rationally self interested" reason for why they did it. They are often risking their lives to keep promises they made, or to protect the rights of others out of a sense of duty, and then they say things like "I did it because I benefit if we live in a society where promises are kept and rights are protected". It seems a bit silly, but it's not "plain selfishness".
Civilisation at even the levels you discuss could not exist without co-operation. A number of Randian hermits could not run parts of feudal Europe even though I'm sure they would feel entitled enough to think they deserve to do so.
I don't know where you are getting hermits from. The characters in Atlas Shrugged were living in metropolis that they essentially built. even when they went off to form their own society, it wasn't to be alone, it was so the could build another thriving metropolis that wasn't ruined by the villains in the book. A huge portion of the book talked about the importance of mutually beneficial business deals, and in moving society forward through excellence. She just as much as anyone believed in the benefit of working together to achieve more than what people could achieve by themselves. The only difference is she believed that the reason people should work together is for their own interest, which is why she opposed being forced to work together as in communism.
Did you ever read any of her books? Did you even read the other words in my post? I did actually explain why she did not advocate "plain selfishness". Do you care to contest any of the points I actually made? Or do you just want to pretend that I made different points that could be refuted by just repeating what you already said?
The existence of civilization required overcoming such a thing instead of staying in self interested small family groups.
You think civilization overcame selfishness?! Do you not consider feudal Europe selfish or not a civilization? What about the industrial revolution?
Slashdot Mirror
Fiat currencies are not backed by a commodity. Fiat just means "let it become", "let it be done", "it shall be" (i.e. "backed" by government decree rather than by a commodity)
Bitcoin is not tied to any government or law and therefore cannot be a fiat currency.
Bitcoin is not fiat currency. Fiat currency is backed by government decree.
The fewer 'miners' (thats a stupid fucking name for the process) the more profit each one can get.
Why is it stupid? It's intended to be analogous to the process of expending resources to mine precious metals like gold.
What value is done by digging up shiny pieces of metal from the ground?
Are you deliberately being obtuse?
Are you?!
I'm sure most money made from mining gold, goes into buying gold mining equipment... It's kinda lame, but it's not novel.
I thought one of the major selling points of riecoin is that calculating prime numbers *is* useful. To who, and for exactly what, I don't know....
I'm not sure why you think "pretty thing/art medium" counts as being useful. I could say that bitcoin is useful to because some people derive pleasure from knowing the answers to useless math problems.
You can make things that are the same color as gold. Why is it important that things actually be made of gold? It is only because it is a status symbol because of it's rarity. Gold's most useful feature is it's rarity. Bitcoins are rare too. Things don't need to be physical to be rare. Maybe everyone will decide not to want bitcoins anymore and they will be worthless. Maybe someday everyone will decide they don't want gold anymore. We don;t need bitcoins or gold. This is in contrast to real commodities like water and food that we can;t one day decide we just don;t really want anymore.
Repeatedly solving equations on a computer does not actually do anything valuable.
What value is done by digging up shiny pieces of metal from the ground?
This is a pretty good analogy. I would say that someone who took the time to write you a note explaining that they closed your door for you is probably not someone looking to steal all your stuff. A malicious person would want to expend the least amount of energy for the most gain, and leave the least amount of evidence of tampering to reduce the risk of getting caught. Writing you a note explain the situation to the vulnerable really doesn't benefit a malicious person, especially if they are not trying to extort you or something like that.
It's next to impossible to know what DD-WRT version/build/release to install on anything.
It's certainly not easy. It's clearly a mess. I wouldn't say it's "next to impossible". I spent about an hour figuring out what I needed to do, after installing a version suggested by the selection tool (that did not work very well).
you can pretend that the tea party shut down the government, but you can't stop more and more people from waking up to the realization of that being total bullshit.
I said it was irrelevant. It doesn't matter who shut it down. The tea party was the one bragging about shutting it down, and then backed off when it seemed unpopular. But like I said. It's meaningless. And no I don't get my news form CNN or Fox, I don't have cable.
Why is every single tea party politician in the republican party?
the majority of the tea party movement doesn't concern itself with marriage because there are much bigger fish to fry... the government shouldn't be involved in deciding who can marry and who can't. the media focus on people who claim to be tea party followers talking about marriage are likely plants, and reporting by CNN and Fox is basically all propaganda.
There is bigger fish to fry than equal rights for people? There is literally no bigger fish to fry for a real libertarian.
the tea party continually highlight fiscal responsibility, sound money, putting a stop of empire building, renewing friendly trade ties with other nations, increasing government transparency and personal privacy, etc.
They highlight the freedoms that serve them, and downlplay the freedoms that don't. I am well aware.
Fox and CNN will do anything they can to keep voters eyes off the ball, and for many (including yourself apparently) it is working.
Boy you really nailed me down there. /s
Here is my voting record:
2000: Harry Brown
2004: Michael Badnarik
2008: Ron Paul
2012: Ron Paul (write in)
Fuck the tea party!
Your opinions are claims that can be verified to be false. You can have an opinion that the holocaust was a hoax, but that doesn't make you immune to accusations that you are a liar or ignorant. You don't get to simply call your claims opinions, and magically become immune to the truth.
My opinion is that you are a liar and/or willfully ignorant because you have no regard for the truth.
why do you think we keep seeing internet regulation bills come up in congress?
Because the government likes to regulate things?
tea party candidates are winning elections, pushing other republican and democrat candidates out... and their buddies are afraid it will happen to them
Because they are politicians that will say and do anything to be popular with whatever people what at any given time.
why do you think during the 2012 republican primary there were entire electorates excluded from the vote because they were full of ron paul supporters?
I don't know what you are referring to
why do you think Fox and CNN repeatedly launch personal attacks on tea party and libertarian supporters and candidates because they're afraid of giving their political views any more publicity than they are already garnering on the internet?
Fox doesn't really launch personal attacks on tea party candidates anymore. They are supporters of the tea party since 2008 when it was co-opted by the republican party. Libertarians (being different than both the tea party and the libertarian party) are a different story.
why do you think bitcoin has gained traction?
Because it's new and cool like ipads
tea party and libertarian supporters already know that CNN, Fox, etc are full of shit, ...
Why do you keep lumping libertarians and tea party people together?
I agree that the people in power do not want libertarianism to spread. This is why they attempted and successfully co-opted the tea party and turned it into just a crazier version of the republican party, and something they can actually control and use to their advantage.
Yes libertarianism is a great idea that needs to spread. The tea party was a real grass roots movement that is 100% co-opted and serves the interests of billionaires that are funding them.
So where's the quote of my words that indicates my willingness to do it? That's what you need to show your own honesty. You can't do it can you?
I basically spent the entire thread correcting misinformation that you are spreading. I don't think it would be productive to copy+paste the entire thread.
So how about a few concrete examples:
You said Ayn Rand is opposed to any form of government.
You said Ayn Rand advocating living in small tribal groups.
You said "shrugging" according to Ayn Rand was doing a job poorly.
All of these are false. I asserted that they were false, and you just went on to the next bit if misinformation without contesting or conceding my assertion. This to me indicates a willingness on your part to spread misinformation. If you know it's false, then you are a liar. If you don't care, it makes you willfully ignorant.
Go on then - quote where I have suggested that lying is OK if you disagree with someone.
I find the fact that you have no reservations about lying (or at least being willfully ignorant) to be insulting and childish.
1. You have indicated it with your willingness to do it, whether you admit to it or not.
2. I left open the possibility that you are just stupid.
The leadership is not afraid. The leadership is making millions of dollars by selling power to corporations and selling fear to their followers. Are republicans frustrated that Obama is a secret muslim born in kenya? Or do they fear that a secret muslim from kenya occupies the highest position in the government? The way Fox News portrays what is happening in this country, if you believe them, you *should* be afraid. We are a great world power that is about to completely fall apart. Is this a reason to be frustrated or afraid? American exceptionalism is threatened. Our entire way of life is threatened. Should we be frustrated that we are going to be subservient to the chinese due to our death spiral into socialism or should we be afraid?
Maybe the people who just want to pay no income tax can see through the fear mongering and just want a bigger house or a new car. But the majority of people watching Fox, think this is real, and they are fucking scared.
i don't think so... i think fear is the tool of the republican and democrat parties
I agree with this, but I would add that the tea party *is* the republican party (or at least a wing of it) at this point.
the tea party and the libertarian movements are increasing in popularity because they cut through the fear mongering by the duopoly
The tea party is way far removed from being libertarian at this point. There is almost nothing libertarian about it anymore.
the only fear that the tea party instills is in republican and democratic politicians who fear losing their power
I don't doubt that republicans fear losing their power to other republicans.
the tea party (like libertarians) isn't really left or right... it's just anti-big government
It takes more to be a libertarian than to just be anti-big government. Republicans are anti-big government too.
there are anarchists in the tea party, but the majority understands that government has a limited role to play in national defence (opposed to military interventionism and empire building) and some other things. there are different ideas, but that's healthy in any party and shouldn't be feared.
Do they understand that freedom actually trumps their conception of traditional American values as well? Do they understand that freedom means *not* defining marriage to be between one man and one woman? Do they understand that the freedom to decide what goes into your own body trumps their desire not to live in a drug free society? Do they understand that prostitution is a mutual agreement between adults free to make their own choices?
libertarians (the real ones) understand this. Teabaggers (i.e. republicans do not).
all the propaganda about the tea party shutting down government and threatening US default is just that... propaganda, and if anyone looks beyond what they see on Fox and CNN it's pretty obvious that the tea party is not the problem
The tea party is not the *only* problem. The tea party (i.e. Republicans) were responsible for shutting down the government. But this was just a poorly calculated political move. Ultimately it was completely meaningless. It's just another case of the minority party being obstructionist while the other party is in power. same old story.
No I'm suggesting that if something is flawed it's OK to point out the flaws.
You are not pointing out real flaws. You are inventing your own flaws to point out. I have pointed out the flaws that you have made and you just ignore them and apparently don't feel the need to even pretend to be intellectually honest.
Your bit about lying is very insulting and childish.
I find the fact that you have no reservations about lying (or at least being willfully ignorant) to be insulting and childish.
So what you are saying is that if something is flawed, then it is ok to lie about it? Can I say that Hitler killed a billion Chinese people? It doesn't matter if it is not true, because he was a bad guy? It's ok to lie as long as it's for a good cause? Don't you have any respect for the truth?
With respect there are much better things to read than ranting polemics
That is definitely true.
written by people with very little experience or understanding of what they are ranting against.
Which is exactly what you are doing to Ayn Rand in this thread. You are criticizing positions that you incorrectly attribute to her. You are criticizing books you haven't read. You don;t even need to read her books. You could just read wikipedia articles on ayn rand, atlas shrugged and objectivism to know that much of what you have said about her and her point of view is misinformed.
Yes there are better things you can read with your time than atlas shrugged. It is by far not a great work of literature. But I think you should read it if you are going to attempt to criticize it.
Or any other form of government. She isn't just down on communism which is why her work is laughed at. It's pushing very small tribal groups instead of any sort of organised form of society - so my "hermits" bit is not really that accurate because the "hermits" have families and a small circle of friends.
I wouldn't say she was against any form of government. I'm pretty sure she viewed a central government as the only legitimate means of protecting rights and enforcing the rule of law. She was opposed to anarchism. She even supported government enforcement of patents and copyrights as a means to drive innovation. So the claim that she is opposed to government in general is just false.
One thing that really gets me is the shrugged bit itself. Instead of the choice of doing a job or not there is the pretence of a third choice, shrugging, doing the job in such a useless way that everyone wished you didn't do it at all. It's shallow sociopathic bullshit and if Stalin had paid someone to come to the US and write stuff to divide the place I doubt he couldn't have got better results. Instead Rand did it for free - living off US welfare while railing against it and the system that kept her alive.
I feel like you didn't actually read this book. The "shrugging" is not analogous to doing a half ass job as you said. It was actually about opting out entirely and not participating in a corrupt system. So of your 3 choices, shrugging was closest to just not doing your job at all. The book actually drones on quite a bit about how you should either strive for excellence in whatever you do. If you choose not to do your job as in the case of many characters in the book, it should be with some purpose rather than out of laziness or apathy.
I really think you should just read the book. You won't agree with everything. I know I certainly didn't, but I think you will find that it is not what you think it is. If you only watched the movies, I think you are actually losing a lot of what was in the book. The plot is still there, but the long speeches and nuanced conversations are pretty much boiled down to a few sentences. This is probably the right way to make a movie, but it is no longer really a defense of objectivism. Also, I wouldn't say the movies are particularly good.
All costs spent are detailed. you can see for yourself.
Send me a link. I'm willing to read it.
one issue I do have is the fact that michelle and the kids and the president tend to take different planes, at a cost of millions to the tax payer when they go away. I wont argue whether or not they should be going away as much as they do but traveling on different modes of transportation costs us millions in extra every year
I have noticed a common trend among the right wing media, where they will cite facts (some true some false), about Obama which seem alarming, but when you actually do some research it turns out that these facts are either basically common to all presidents, misleading, or just not true.
I might have a problem with excessive costs of security for presidents in general. Is there any data to suggest that Obama is wasting drastically more money on security and transport for his family than past presidents?
You seem to forget that the libertarians started the tea party movement,
I didn;t forget that at all. Here is a quote from another comment I made in this thread
[In regards to being for limited government] This is 100% true. They were actually anti-bush. Fox News would routinely denounce them as lunatics. That all changed once Obama was elected. Once the target of anti-government sentiment was directed against a democrat, then Fox News and the Koch brothers could get behind them. Once Sarah Palin became the figurehead of the tea party, anyone with half a brain left. Even the Libertarian party is no co-opted by republicans. Bob Barr? Wayne Allen Root? seriously?
But seriously, the media likes to spout out the racism card as you just did, dont fall into that trap. yes there are members of the tea party that are racist, but there are people in EVERY group who are racist.
I agree that the tea party is not a group that advocates racism, and this is a valid distinction to be made with groups like the KKK, etc, and I don't want to insinuate that it is. My assertion is more that their movement seems to be driven by fear. This fear is fostered by the Republican party and conservative interest groups and media. One very prevalent fear is that sort of underlies a lot of the rhetoric that is actually explicit is that "traditional America" is being eroded by socialism and the people who benefit from socialism, lazy people (i.e. minorities with different values), and people who would disrupt the traditional family values (e.g. gay people, people who want to legalize drugs and prostitution, etc).
The tea party may kick out overtly racist people from public gatherings, because nobody wants to be associated with overt racism, but they sure do benefit from the sort of racism that my grandparents generation seems to have (i.e. the kind that comes up in private). I know an old lady who was robbed by a black man in her home, and she is now convinced that this is related to Obama ruining the social fabric of America. This is exactly the kind of mindset Fox News wants you to be in, without saying it in public.
And by no means am I saying that this kind of racism is unique to the tea party. It is fully present in the republican party proper and in the democratic party. I don;t doubt that many people vote for minority politicians because of a fear that rich white men will not work in the best interests of minorities.
What I am contrasting this to, is not the left version of the tea party. What I am contrasting this to, is the actual libertarian ideology which tends to be much more intellectual. Rather than being based on fear, it is based on principles of autonomy, free association, etc. It is unequivocally for legalization of drugs (the right to your own body/autonomy), the legalization of prostitution and gay/plural marriage (right of free association). It is not that libertarians like drugs and prostitution (although some probably do), and all forms of adult marriage, it is that their guiding principles lead them to the conclusion that these should not be illegal.
I will also clarify that I think the left has an equally intellectual contingent as well. Many of my best friends I would put in this category. What I am asserting is that both the left and the right also have their dumb reactionary racist dear mongering contingents, and on the right this is called the tea party.
I know that you did but I disagree and think those examples are a bit of a stretch on the part of advocates to try to justify the underlying message.
I am not an Ayn Rand advocate. I think the best criticism of her that I have ever heard is the following "Her original parts of her philosophy suck, and the good parts of her philosophy are unoriginal". I think the "selfishness" part of her philosophy falls under the category of unoriginal but correct.
To me it is not even a question of "should we be selfish?". Everyone already is selfish on some level. People who donate time and money to charity because it makes them feel good are selfish. People who are loyal friends are selfish because they expect loyalty in return. There is no such thing as true altruism, because if there were really no benefit (or perceived benefit) to an action, then there is no reason to do it.
What Ayn Rand is saying is that we shouldn't pretend that this is not who we are. We shouldn't pretend that we are ever 100% selfless. It doesn't even make sense to be. Rather than feeling guilty about it and shaming others for it, we need a more mature and realistic model of altruism/selfishness.
There needs to be a way to distinguish somebody who does something positive like donating to charity because it makes them feel good, with somebody who exploits poor people in order to get money to buy luxury items that makes them feel good.
Most people will call the person who exploits poor people selfish and the person who donates to charity altruistic. Ayn Rand chooses to call the person who donates to charity selfish (i.e. a rational self interested person) and the person who exploits the poor a looter (i.e. a person who's self interest is irrational). In this respect I think she was being deliberately sensationalistic. As I said, it is easy to look at this and say, "Ayn Rand advocates selfishness", but this is only if you ignore the fact that Ayn Rands version of selfishness (while not exactly generosity by most people's standards), is certainly not what they would consider selfishness.
What I have read of her work was juvenile selfishness, ranting against democracy, and a whole lot of magical stuff happening to characters for no reason as the universe gifted them with things, presumably because they were special. The latter is fine so long as people don't try to pretend it's anything more than fiction, but that's the problem isn't it?
There are probably a hundred examples in her books of people behaving in an essentially generous or at least civically responsible manner, but give a "rationally self interested" reason for why they did it. They are often risking their lives to keep promises they made, or to protect the rights of others out of a sense of duty, and then they say things like "I did it because I benefit if we live in a society where promises are kept and rights are protected". It seems a bit silly, but it's not "plain selfishness".
Civilisation at even the levels you discuss could not exist without co-operation. A number of Randian hermits could not run parts of feudal Europe even though I'm sure they would feel entitled enough to think they deserve to do so.
I don't know where you are getting hermits from. The characters in Atlas Shrugged were living in metropolis that they essentially built. even when they went off to form their own society, it wasn't to be alone, it was so the could build another thriving metropolis that wasn't ruined by the villains in the book. A huge portion of the book talked about the importance of mutually beneficial business deals, and in moving society forward through excellence. She just as much as anyone believed in the benefit of working together to achieve more than what people could achieve by themselves. The only difference is she believed that the reason people should work together is for their own interest, which is why she opposed being forced to work together as in communism.
The existence of civilization required overcoming such a thing instead of staying in self interested small family groups.
You think civilization overcame selfishness?! Do you not consider feudal Europe selfish or not a civilization? What about the industrial revolution?