Who would you rather grow up to be?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Aeris Ayn Rand, hands down. I like her writing, I like the way she thinks. And anybody that independent in a world this complicated is someone who commands my respect. And I've never much liked Camus' work.

Man, the Libertarians just love Rand. The surprise would be if I could group any 100 random Libertarians together and find 3 in the group who did NOT like her. I was just making a safe bet, picking her to kick this thread off.

[Aeris]

I'm not looking at this politically, sorry to dissappoint.

I don't like Camus' word usage and sentence construction as much as I like Rand's. I do not like either of them as much as Italo Calvino for the same reason. "The Man Who Shouted Theresa" and "The Black Sheep" are my two favorites there.

It makes sense that libertarians would pick Rand, true. But I thought we were supposed to be looking at it from a literary aspect. Of course, I then reread the OP. Shame on me for not considering politics in everything.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Aeris I'm not looking at this politically, sorry to dissappoint. I don't like Camus' word usage and sentence construction as much as I like Rand's. I do not like either of them as much as Italo Calvino for the same reason. "The Man Who Shouted Theresa" and "The Black Sheep" are my two favorites there. It makes sense that libertarians would pick Rand, true. But I thought we were supposed to be looking at it from a literary aspect. Of course, I then reread the OP. Shame on me for not considering politics in everything.

I did not mean to say you had to look at it from a political perspective. It just is what it is. Politics, philosophy, art - they all speak to our inner selves and as a result, patterns emerge. One can never demand that a gay person like Gore Vidal or any such nonsense, but Objectivism, Rand's philosophical system, dovetails with Libertarian ideals.

Are you sure you do not like Camus' word usage? Unless you read French, it is (maybe)the translators word usage you are not fond of...

[Aeris]

Quote by: lsbskins1 I did not mean to say you had to look at it from a political perspective. It just is what it is. Politics, philosophy, art - they all speak to our inner selves and as a result, patterns emerge. One can never demand that a gay person like Gore Vidal or any such nonsense, but Objectivism, Rand's philosophical system, dovetails with Libertarian ideals. Are you sure you do not like Camus' word usage? Unless you read French, it is (maybe)the translators word usage you are not fond of...

I've read multiple translations AND the French. I don't like any of them.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Aeris I've read multiple translations AND the French. I don't like any of them.

You are a better man than I, Gunga Din. I took Latin, and still can't read it. Uni-lingual and damn shamed by it!

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: Your objections are based on the assumption that you do not gain from social programs. They are based on the assumption that the only real benefit is a direct line, no middle ground, benefit. Both of these assumptions are incorrect.

I say:
As I said, the benefits are by the two agreeing parties, since that is all they can realisticly bargain FOR. Ohio couldn't force me to pay for the Big Dig, why can the government. (line of authority, derivation of power.....for the 100th time.) My benefits are not spoken of in the contract, therefore they are not guaranteed, or even worthy of mention. The transporter or producer MAY or MAY NOT pass that savings on to me as the BUYER. That company may or may not hire ME the WORKER. Contract laws cover the parties involved, using the language involved, and nothing else. This is why I fault government, because they have willfully, with intention, broken the contract, which requires a modification to the contract, a rewrite, an amendment, etc.

Isbskins said: Lets take the Big Dig. You figure, you don't live in Boston, you don't work in Boston, you don't travel on Boston's roads, so they are not of any benefit to you. I say that is short sighted. You are a window washer, no? Maybe a trucking company is headquartered in the town in Ohio you live and work in. Maybe this trucking company will save x-thousand dollars a year in shipping fees once the Big Dig is completed. Maybe now, they wash their windows twice a month rather than once a month because of that savings. That, my friend, benefits you. Interstate commerce. Your federal dollars at work. If the Big Dig is funded solely by tolls, you are now a free rider.

I say:
If it mentioned it in the contract, and I could "not sign" or "sign", I would be game. Since I can't I am not. It isn't my money, it isn't my labor, it isn't my profit.

The free rider argument is simply a debate tactic to turn the people against themselves.

Isbskins said: There will be times some benefit comes to you you never pay for and times that you pay for something that never benefits you. There is no perfection in any system. Don't expect it.

I say:
I don't expect perfection, since we know humans can't be perfect.(as of yet anyway)

I expect the government to honor their contract. I expect the "people" to honor it also. The only reason for law is to have it enforced. If the people don't respect the law, eventually they won't respect the enforcers(as we are seeing, globally and in our own nation.) If people won't respect the law, often-times they go OUT OF THEIR WAY to break it when they can. This creates a vicious circle dependent on force.

When government started interfering in individual rights, and granting individual rights to corporations instead, this is where the dividing line started. The changes to the economy, empowered the corporate globalists, and the bankers, not the individual. The prohibition laws(of any kind) are helping the corporations, and showing a "need" for more funds, it isn't helping the people. All of the above, are actually working against people in ways many themselves don't understand. Many accept government corruption as the "status quo", never seeming to connect the dots of why that is, how that is, and where that power comes from.

If you really believed as you did, you would be against big government as much as I, since your idea of liberty in your own words goes against the government description of the same word. What is a law, when words have no meaning, and are changed like wet socks?

Isbskins said: But, in balance, you benefit from our system. You can deny it, but it does not make it true. You are the one claiming harm. It should be your burden to show the harm.

I say:
I didn't ask for that benefit, and at every option I can I turn it down because I am not a welfare child, a state dependent, a nanny-stater. Eventually I saw how wrong that was, since I had paid into the system for so many years and would never get that money back.
I didn't sign up for any services, ANY, except to serve my country in the armed forces. I gave where I thought it would count. Turns out I was wrong there too, since I was just the lever part of the problem, instead of the BUYER of the lever. (the lever being force)

I try not to buy Chinese goods, but since I can't, I buy almost no goods.
I try not to buy India's products, but since I can't, I buy almost no products.
I try not to use government service, but since I can't refuse to pay for it, why shouldn't I get my money back, or at least use what they WONT give me?

[bishop]

i never liked either of those two philosophers..

i've always been a fan of plato and hobbes myself.. read each the republic and leviathan plent-o-times.

[Spartacus]

Who would you rather grow up to be?

Carlo Ponti

[Aeris]

Went and read Anthem. Linguisitcally, it was facinating. Philosophically, it was ok. I still prefer Calvino to both Rand and Camus. The novellette on a whole was dishearteningly predicatable. But now I'm reading Atlas Shrugged. I'm hoping that since there is more time for development, it will be better. So far, its dragging (as any other 1,000+ book would do) but its showing promise.

[Osborn F Enready]

I truly loved Atlas Shrugged. Just read it myself.