i think the average american musician makes a lot more than the average soviet musician ever did.
van gogh sold his art for pennies. that means van gogh's art was crap back when it sold for pennies. it had no value. by definition. now it has value to people and it sells for millions. thats what value means. why does the value of art have to be constant and why do you get to decide what is art when?
how much is dutch national pride worth? you seem to think its worth a lot. to you it has a high value. to me its worth nothing. i wouldn't pay for it and its of no use to me. if you think its important, then go ahead and spend your money on that. let others spend their money on what they think is important. why do you get to be the dictator? what about freedom and choice?
You can have all the Britney you want. But don't try to tell me that it's good art, just because a lot of people want to hear it.
this is the central point i am making. you and the NEA are the ones telling me and everyone else what art we must pay for. i say let the people be free to decide for themselves via the free market what is or is not important to them. when you have a socialist organization like the NEA, you tax everyone and force people to pay for things that may have no value to them. its despotic.
there is no need for "experts" like you to tell people what is best for them. they don't need your advice on whether national pride or art is important. if they think something is important for their future, they will invest time and effort and money in that thing by their own free will.
Actually, musicians and other artists tend to be paid better (compared to their non-artist peers) in more socialist countries than they do under capitalism.
britney spears and the beatles get paid a lot more than any soviet or chinese musician ever did.
demand for your art is the only measure of quality that matters. many people clearly think britney spears is a good entertainer. you have the opinion that the music you listen to (non britney spears) is better. thats fine, but music is completely subjective (whats the difference between sound waves you get from an orchestra and the sound waves from a hammer) and most people don't agree with you.
whats really lame and pathetic is that you get up on your high horse think that everyone should help pay for your choice of entertainment. pay for it yourself if its so great.
socialism produces bad art (which i define as art that nobody/barely anyone wants to see or hear).
the free market is a friend to the arts that people are actually interested in.
while what you say is not really false, i feel that people who say that are often trying say that Marx somehow had a better or purer philosophy than stalin or mao. or they want to say that Marx had some great insight into humanity and that communism could work if only things had been done a little different.
Marx said that first the state must take everything from the people. then later, somehow, magically everything would be everyone's and they would all be equal and they would all live in peace and harmony. Russia and China and North Korea followed Marx's prescription exactly.
in the end extreme forms of monarchy, fascism, communism, and totalitarianism are all the pretty much the same thing: a couple guys at the top get to decide how everything is going to work and who gets to live and who gets to die and everyone else is a slave.
communists believe that all property and means of production (companies) should be put into the hands of the government. marx specifically said this would have to be done using "despotic" means. people do not like it when their property is stolen. and when all that power and wealth is put into the hands of the state, the few people who run the government are going to abuse it. the more extreme your brand of socialism, the more likely you will get a blood bath. stalinists were pretty extreme.
capitalism spreads the wealth and power around to the people instead of concentrating it in one person or organization.
castro killed 5,000 - 22,000 depending on whose numbers you believe. if you want to include the people who die on rafts trying to escape cuba, add another 5,000 - 85,000 (again depending on whose numbers you believe).
sure castro's economic policies have done wonders for cuba. thats why 3000 people a year jump on rafts to get the hell out of there. how about comparing them to chile who has had a more or less free market system since 1973. which country has a higher standard of living?
Yeah, the Japanese are just way better at programming their vcrs. Its the way something evolved in their genes. Western civilization is just inferior to other cultures.
If you made that same comment about Islamic society or Blacks or Native Americans, you would be modded a troll. But on Slashdot its ok to say Americans are too stupid to handle high technology. And you are too stupid to realize the difference in cell phone technology in different countries has to do with economics, government regulation, and standards. But lets just blame it on the media.
Anyone with wealth automatically exploited society to get it. Its not possible that someone actually earned their money. Not only that, but in order to keep everyone equal we must keep people from becoming rich. This is why socialism is dangerous and this is why the Soviet Union failed so spectacularly. This line of thinking actually does lead to equality, but it leads to everyone being equally poor. Those with skill and drive and talent are forced into mediocrity or at the very least are left without an incentive to perform. The author of the parent post implies that inequality is a bad thing. He fails to recognize that people really are not equal. He cannot see that some people work harder or are more talented and that is why they are successful.
The goal should be to raise everyone's standard of living, not to destroy those who are successful. Of the vast increase in the well being of hundreds of millions of people that has occurred in the 200 year course of the industrial revolution to date, virtually none of it can be attributed to the direct redistribution of resources from rich to poor. The potential for improving the lives of poor people through redistribution is nothing compared to the apparently limitless potential of increasing production. Anyone interested in learning more about this line of thinking should read The Industrial Revolution - Past and Future, a paper by Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Lucas.
everyone on the planet will die? dude, get a sense of perspective. how many people are dying right now due to air pollution compared to how many people are dying right now from heart attacks?
yes i really like the seemingly objectivist streak in the movie. (or at least i was happy to interpret it as objectivist)
to me it echoed the current state of "progressive" culturalism where the successful are punished and are supposed to be ashamed of their talent and success. they have to give to charity to make up for the sins of their success. even though they create most of the jobs and most of the wealth in society and even though they hand over half of their earnings to the government to support the less talented, the less driven, and the less fortunate, they are criticized. much like the incredibles who had to hide their gifts when laws were passed against them. in schools our society often concerns itself with the underachievers who don't even want to be in school instead of helping students who are actually motivated to succeed.
i know the movie probably doesn't completely work as an objectivist metaphor, but i appreciated even the half nod in that direction.
unfortunately i don't really know anything about nietzche so i can't comment on that.
well i agree but if you hosers would read my freaking post, i said bush is more for free trade than kerry. not that bush is as free trade as i wish he was.
Slashdot Mirror
i think the average american musician makes a lot more than the average soviet musician ever did.
van gogh sold his art for pennies. that means van gogh's art was crap back when it sold for pennies. it had no value. by definition. now it has value to people and it sells for millions. thats what value means. why does the value of art have to be constant and why do you get to decide what is art when?
how much is dutch national pride worth? you seem to think its worth a lot. to you it has a high value. to me its worth nothing. i wouldn't pay for it and its of no use to me. if you think its important, then go ahead and spend your money on that. let others spend their money on what they think is important. why do you get to be the dictator? what about freedom and choice?
You can have all the Britney you want. But don't try to tell me that it's good art, just because a lot of people want to hear it.
this is the central point i am making. you and the NEA are the ones telling me and everyone else what art we must pay for. i say let the people be free to decide for themselves via the free market what is or is not important to them. when you have a socialist organization like the NEA, you tax everyone and force people to pay for things that may have no value to them. its despotic.
there is no need for "experts" like you to tell people what is best for them. they don't need your advice on whether national pride or art is important. if they think something is important for their future, they will invest time and effort and money in that thing by their own free will.
And in the American republic, things are different how???
oh good point. you got me there. things are exactly the same in america as they were under stalin, mao, and hitler.
how about:
private property
freedom
voting
high standard of living
but then those are just little things.
Actually, musicians and other artists tend to be paid better (compared to their non-artist peers) in more socialist countries than they do under capitalism.
britney spears and the beatles get paid a lot more than any soviet or chinese musician ever did.
demand for your art is the only measure of quality that matters. many people clearly think britney spears is a good entertainer. you have the opinion that the music you listen to (non britney spears) is better. thats fine, but music is completely subjective (whats the difference between sound waves you get from an orchestra and the sound waves from a hammer) and most people don't agree with you.
whats really lame and pathetic is that you get up on your high horse think that everyone should help pay for your choice of entertainment. pay for it yourself if its so great.
socialism produces bad art (which i define as art that nobody/barely anyone wants to see or hear).
the free market is a friend to the arts that people are actually interested in.
while what you say is not really false, i feel that people who say that are often trying say that Marx somehow had a better or purer philosophy than stalin or mao. or they want to say that Marx had some great insight into humanity and that communism could work if only things had been done a little different.
Marx said that first the state must take everything from the people. then later, somehow, magically everything would be everyone's and they would all be equal and they would all live in peace and harmony. Russia and China and North Korea followed Marx's prescription exactly.
in the end extreme forms of monarchy, fascism, communism, and totalitarianism are all the pretty much the same thing: a couple guys at the top get to decide how everything is going to work and who gets to live and who gets to die and everyone else is a slave.
dude i'm not going to read all that crap. give me a freaking summary.
communists believe that all property and means of production (companies) should be put into the hands of the government. marx specifically said this would have to be done using "despotic" means. people do not like it when their property is stolen. and when all that power and wealth is put into the hands of the state, the few people who run the government are going to abuse it. the more extreme your brand of socialism, the more likely you will get a blood bath. stalinists were pretty extreme.
capitalism spreads the wealth and power around to the people instead of concentrating it in one person or organization.
pinochet killed 3,000.
castro killed 5,000 - 22,000 depending on whose numbers you believe. if you want to include the people who die on rafts trying to escape cuba, add another 5,000 - 85,000 (again depending on whose numbers you believe).
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat6.htm
Hitler got the trains running on time in Germany, too.
heh. i'd mod u +1 funny if i had some mod points.
sure castro's economic policies have done wonders for cuba. thats why 3000 people a year jump on rafts to get the hell out of there. how about comparing them to chile who has had a more or less free market system since 1973. which country has a higher standard of living?
good grief.
When was the last time you heard someone tell you they wanted to carry on the family tradition of a particular trade.
but i don't want to be a drunken lumber jack like my grandfather.
as if. your type II civilization is no match for our type III construct which harnesses all the energy from the entire galaxy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
would just like to say amen my brother.
we use http://www.verysimple.com/
its a pretty simple calendar. i like it. might be too simple for many people though.
#terrorism. thats hilarious.
Yeah, the Japanese are just way better at programming their vcrs. Its the way something evolved in their genes. Western civilization is just inferior to other cultures.
If you made that same comment about Islamic society or Blacks or Native Americans, you would be modded a troll. But on Slashdot its ok to say Americans are too stupid to handle high technology. And you are too stupid to realize the difference in cell phone technology in different countries has to do with economics, government regulation, and standards. But lets just blame it on the media.
why don't we just keep voting until the democrats win? isn't that what you really mean?
This is exactly the attitude i am talking about.
Anyone with wealth automatically exploited society to get it. Its not possible that someone actually earned their money. Not only that, but in order to keep everyone equal we must keep people from becoming rich. This is why socialism is dangerous and this is why the Soviet Union failed so spectacularly. This line of thinking actually does lead to equality, but it leads to everyone being equally poor. Those with skill and drive and talent are forced into mediocrity or at the very least are left without an incentive to perform. The author of the parent post implies that inequality is a bad thing. He fails to recognize that people really are not equal. He cannot see that some people work harder or are more talented and that is why they are successful.
The goal should be to raise everyone's standard of living, not to destroy those who are successful. Of the vast increase in the well being of hundreds of millions of people that has occurred in the 200 year course of the industrial revolution to date, virtually none of it can be attributed to the direct redistribution of resources from rich to poor. The potential for improving the lives of poor people through redistribution is nothing compared to the apparently limitless potential of increasing production. Anyone interested in learning more about this line of thinking should read The Industrial Revolution - Past and Future, a paper by Nobel Prize winning economist Robert Lucas.
first of all bush is the first president in a while to support nuclear power.
+1 informative
everyone on the planet will die? dude, get a sense of perspective. how many people are dying right now due to air pollution compared to how many people are dying right now from heart attacks?
yes i really like the seemingly objectivist streak in the movie. (or at least i was happy to interpret it as objectivist)
to me it echoed the current state of "progressive" culturalism where the successful are punished and are supposed to be ashamed of their talent and success. they have to give to charity to make up for the sins of their success. even though they create most of the jobs and most of the wealth in society and even though they hand over half of their earnings to the government to support the less talented, the less driven, and the less fortunate, they are criticized. much like the incredibles who had to hide their gifts when laws were passed against them. in schools our society often concerns itself with the underachievers who don't even want to be in school instead of helping students who are actually motivated to succeed.
i know the movie probably doesn't completely work as an objectivist metaphor, but i appreciated even the half nod in that direction.
unfortunately i don't really know anything about nietzche so i can't comment on that.
well i agree but if you hosers would read my freaking post, i said bush is more for free trade than kerry. not that bush is as free trade as i wish he was.
bush if more for free trade than kerry
good post. i especially agree with your last comment.
insightful. even if you disagree, this is a strong point that is rarely brought up on slashdot.