Question for Objectivists

Post Reply New Topic

I like that artwork, is it original?

He owns it but he himself stole it from his Labourers. I was wondering that since you think all rich people are inherently of worth and the poor are all inherently unworthy and lazy, where do you set the bar? What income bracket does one become intrinsicly noble?

Ayn Rand Accepted social security.
http://freemarketmojo.com/?p=15505
the link is a defense of that fact.
-Jake

Why are arms dealers who make their money selling weapons to dictators so they can cruelly suppress and torture their own people of a higher societal worth than i? Who's only crime is to accept the handouts the children of the rich are free to accept?

I think all "Objectivists" need to read Hume. Ayn Rand commits the fallacy of deriving a "should" from an "is". Rationality cannot be appealed to as a moral directive. It's also rather ironic that people who most passionately claim that their views are based in "reason" are often the most unreasonable and emotive in their thinking.

@PJW

It is not a matter of impoverishing the rich; it is a matter of everyone paying their fair share for the services received in the country. The reduction of taxes has been largely a political gimmick in the last ten years. They were unfunded and benefitted all; rich and poor. Who do you think is going to end up paying for them? If you are young and find your way to employment (good luck to you) eventually you may be the one to assist in paying back those taxes; not the ones that got the most benefit.

Wouldn't it be fairer if the country starts working on it now; paying as we go, instead of waiting until it is your turn? The fact that those tax cuts were not funded makes them handouts. I don't see many rich or poor refusing those handouts.

PJW has the ideological belief that money paid in taxes still belongs to the individual so your argument isn't valid given his premises. I'd rather attack his premises.

the amount of "!"'s has not changed my mind.
(Screaming is not a logical argument)
I am sorry I don't respond to emotional appeals to honor.
(it may be part of my aspergers or maybe I am a logical person)
I don't know you are NT why don't you explain it to me.
I think the pissing off Liberals thing might be projection you seem to be the Angriest person here.

the libs seem to be having a laugh.

-Jake

Currently, to take the UK economy as an example, their are 5 million people on out of work benefits and around 500,000 vacancies in the economy. I'm sure you will find an equivalent statistic in relation to the economy of the United States. How does your above prejudice standup compared to this statistical fact?

Also i'd like to ask of others who support philanthropy as opposed to welfare: How would charity provide enough money for all those people to subsist and if it didn't would you be in favour of coercion so people didn't starve to death? We already know Ruveyn's feeling's on this matter.

Last edited by jamieboy on 23 Feb 2011, 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hume and Kant are both ka ka in the Rand-verse.

ruveyn

With respect, what if it is your hard working children or grandchildren, who become unemployed or disabled at no fault of their own; I don't think they deserve to starve.

To use your words you have not one iota of evidence that in general the unfortunate bring bad fortune upon themselves. Even if the majority of the unfortunate are lazy, incomptent bums, if there is no social safety net available the hard working individuals who find misfortune starve too. Again, with respect, it is an easy thing to say something like this, unless the person is watching their children starve. This is what is at stake in the future, if the country does not start paying its way now.

My solution is that all should pay small yearly incremental increases in tax adjusted for income; every working individual should pay an increase of some kind to save the country from demise.

Spending cuts should be directed at wasteful spending that does not impact the economy or jobs. At least this could fully address the interest on our Debt. The only chance at this will be if political division can be put aside and it can be presented as a crisis that that the public agrees, requires a sacrifice from all.

9-11 proved the country could come together and agree on a war In Iraq that would have been otherwise, politically unlikely. Some are of the opinion that the attacks of 9-11 were all that was necessary for the terrorists to accomplish, to initiate the economic demise of America.

I remember this opinion long before we started to experience the level of economic woes that we have now. We are getting closer to economic demise; the actions that the United States has taken as a reaction to the 9-11 attacks, are a part of our economic woes. It really doesn't matter who was right or who was wrong about the war in Iraq; the economic result is the same.

A nice solution would be a broad based economy that produces goods and jobs that generate revenue for the country. We have to start a financial solution now. We don't have as much control over the creation of jobs in our country, now that we are in a world economy.

Maybe I'm having a bad day. Aren't you agreeing with me about the arbitrary sacrifice of what's mine to benefit everyone other than me?

There is a difference the Left will never understand between cutting taxes arbitrarily and broadening the tax base so a burden is not ostensibly or arbitrarily or in an increasingly global economy borne by one section to its detriment. The Left, squealing with delight as Snowbell falls so Napolean to claim his opponents are simply Snowbellian, read Animal Farm, people, Orwell hated communism as much as the next man, only see big business and the rich as cash cows for the "deserving" poor.

The notion that the rich STOLE - in caps to offend - their wealth from the poor is not only inaccurate and obscenely ideological, it's also offensive to those who aspire to a creative foundation for their wealth.

NEVER TAX INHERITANCES! Taxing an inheritance is taxing an endowment. Once you do that, every, I repeat, EVERY charitable donation, instead of being tax exempt, will automatically, therefore, by logical and ideological extension, also have to be taxed. Do that, and you will kill philanthropy and charity in one fell swoop.

Why are people so guilty of being good at something and receiving reward for it? The irony is, Roger Federer makes more when he loses at the quarter final stage of a grand slam than most of us will make at the peak of our powers in a year. He's feted as the most incredible man, deserving of every dollar he makes. The man that invented the i-pad, however, is not entitled to his wealth? Why? His wealth is also entertainment.

See any disparity here?

Yes, Roger Federer has his Africa foundation. So do most captains of industry, ironically to lower their taxes, also if not have foundations, then contribute to them. You can't force altruism, you can only encourage charity.

Altruism says that I will feed another man and his family before me and my own. Let me ask you, do you see the problem with this?

Deserve? No. But they might starve. Life is hard and unfair.

ruveyn

Ruveyn, has anyone ever told you you're a f***ing jackass?

On several occasions. But that does not make it so. One what logic and facts do you base your sophisticated judgement?

I am hard-hearted and even more, I am hard-headed. I do not indulge in sentimentality.

ruveyn

That's what he says here, but he actually runs a kitten shelter