No clue where else to post this, but if you want a background/investigation into the "intellectual" bedrock of the modern right wing, this is excellent.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
No clue where else to post this, but if you want a background/investigation into the "intellectual" bedrock of the modern right wing, this is excellent.
Thanks! Will hear it tomorrow at work.
Was getting rather late into contact with her, through Fountainhead which was promoted in a subtle way by a brillian but controversial architect I follow. Found the book so-so, no great literature for sure more like a superhero book about an almost human like architect - so even kind of silly fun in a way. But after that I started to read Atlas Shrugged and stopped after 20ish pages and started googling her. That was it for me. I think I can kind of see her starting point but then it gets overtly muddy and incomprehendible (for me at least) and reaches a conclusion that just reads as a half-assed excuse to do shitty stuff. But I also never found her thoughts and writing interesting and well versed enough to really read up on her but the fact that she gets used a lot as a background for those right wingers makes it almost mandatory.
What is it that so many right-wingers like about her book? I've never looked into it just have heard it mentioned a lot when it comes to GOP beliefs.
Never a bad time to revisit this gem…
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/366635-there-are-two-novels-that-can-change-a-bookish-fourteen-year
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/366635-there-are-two-novels-that-can-change-a-bookish-fourteen-year
Lunatics like that are a clear and present danger.
Ayn Rand is a problem for libertarians because she was wrong about nearly everything.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
A long long way to go before anything like a national strike but still quite interesting.
It should. Atleast if the Dems apply the same standards on their own as they do with the GOP. She is definitely as crazy as some of the GOP loons.
It beats having policies and plans to help the middle and working classes.
Crazy but let them at it! MTG will just reveal her insane batshittery & incompetence to more people. It’s a boon to the Dems really.
McCarthy really is a weak ass POS though.
That's not a problem for libertarians, because they're also wrong about nearly everything.
"She wore a cape because she thought she was a super hero, essentially mimicked Stalin in a personal sex cult and got Alan Greenspan to disavow her lover whom she cheated on her husband with" - The least insane Libertarian.
Genuinely folks...give the podcast a listen.
It's super funny. Didn't fully understand all of it unfortunately (no native speaker myself) but parts had me laugh out loud. They present it in a very good and relatable way as well. She must have been so bonkers in person. Questioning in public "What would have Howard Roak done?" One of her cardboard characters she herself invented."She wore a cape because she thought she was a super hero, essentially mimicked Stalin in a personal sex cult and got Alan Greenspan to disavow her lover whom she cheated on her husband with" - The least insane Libertarian.
Genuinely folks...give the podcast a listen.
Making your husband wear bells attached to his slippers so he can't sneak up to her in their house. WTF! 
The intellectual mind that inspired the Chair of the Federal Reserve of the United States (1987–2006)It's super funny. Didn't fully understand all of it unfortunately (no native speaker myself) but parts had me laugh out loud. They present it in a very good and relatable way as well. She must have been so bonkers in person. Questioning in public "What would have Howard Roak done?" One of her cardboard characters she herself invented.
Guys in here disrespecting the philosophic mind that got from A=A to Objectivism.
"Nuance and complexity of thought are a conspiracy of the medicore and poor against the idea that rich people are awesome" - Crazy Bat Lady in her cape
Actual Philosophers:
My favorite is her absolutely butchering Kant, which is why her disciples are known for blaming him for Nazism among other things. In Kant's deontological moral framework a moral action is one where you do something because it's your moral duty to do so. It follows from this that e.g. a pharmacist selling someone a life saving medication because she wants to earn a profit isn't doing something morally good because she's motivated by profit rather than saving lives; it's an amoral action, as in it has nothing to do with morality. Galaxy Brain Rand manages to interpret that reasoning as Kant saying it's an immoral action, i.e. it's morally wrong to sell medicine (and further that any sale or barter is immoral).
Her messing up of basically everything lives on in books by the likes of Leonard Peikoff, and more current Stephen Hicks's Explaining Postmodernism. The latter which is coincidentally Jordan Peterson's main source of philosophical opinions. A is A and existence exists, though, so I guess they're right.
She clearly deserves her own appreciation thread I reckon.
Imagine despising Robin Hood as a child because he gave it to the poor.
Imagine despising Robin Hood as a child because he gave it to the poor.
I haven't met any libertarians or anarchists who have a sophisticated understanding of how the world economy works. Though that being said I haven't met many people at all who could claim that. Who studies systems? Everyone is a specialist.
For most, freedom+economics=libertarianism.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I don't think it's fair to compare libertarians and anarchists. Libertarianism has never existed, but there have been serious attempts at anarchism. The problem is that they were so counter to the prevailing order that they were never allowed to survive. It doesn't help that they always began in time of crisis, because that is when people could be easier convinced that a system revolution is necessary. Anarchism has ten times the intellectual backing that libertarianism is. It's also not inherently immoral.
(That said, I see that maybe that wasn't what you were saying, I just had to add it!)
One of my favorite attempts was Canudos in Brazil, a story fictionalized brilliantly by Mario Vargas Llosa in The War of the End of the World. The true story is mostly the same as the fiction and a fascinating chapter in human history where you actually had basically functional anarchism (but you could say there was still a hierarchy to a small extent) but the government couldn't stand it.
Some people I've talked to use the term libertarianism instead of anarchism because of how reactionary people are to the word anarchy.
Some see a minimization of government as the closest you can get to self government.
None of these people are anything approaching an expert, and neither am I, it must be said. I'd be happy to learn more about it all.
Thought it seems to me we did have minimalist government once upon a time. And we kept needing to add more rules to clarify the intent of the original ones. I don't see how this can be avoided.
Anarchism is a lot more than just minimalist government, though. I'm not an anarchist in any way, but fair is fair.
I was saying Libertarianism is about minimal government.
Who hated Robin Hood?
Ayn Rand did. And with a passion.
Imagine saying on the one hand that i) those that don't worship money are directly advocating for a lawless society where everybody loots and robs everybody else (at gun point and by using force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims) while also ii) criticising Robin Hood for taking what doesn't belong to him + even getting bonus points for that from others while the whole point of the story is kind of that the evil king worships money which doesn't belong to him originally (he hasn't produced and sold anything) but he was able to take by force (or taxes!
) the wealth from his disarmed citizens/victims.
Ayn Rand did. And with a passion.
Imagine saying on the one hand that i) those that don't worship money are directly advocating for a lawless society where everybody loots and robs everybody else (at gun point and by using force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims) while also ii) criticising Robin Hood for taking what doesn't belong to him + even getting bonus points for that from others while the whole point of the story is kind of that the evil king worships money which doesn't belong to him originally (he hasn't produced and sold anything) but he was able to take by force (or taxes!
...Just goes to show if your underlying axioms are wrong, you can use logic to get to some very, very strange places.
If you find yourself hating Robin Hood, or wanting to kill a lot of people from some "group" that only exists as a concept, your axioms might be wrong.
I used to keep a copy of Atlas Shrugged in a little cabinet on the wall in my kitchen, to punish it. They should be kept in the dark since destroying books is gouche.
People might wonder how the Congress worked 10 years ago or so, considering all the tactics that we are seeing nowadays.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Well done in particular to Joseph Reaganette Biden and Alexandria Hernan Cortez.
Biden is just doing his job, and doing it well. AOC is proving that Jimmy Dore has a better understanding of US politics than me and everybody else here. If the GOP manage to pull off their "realignment" of organised labour, well done to them.