G'mornin'...

[Herakles]

Well, I'm new and netiquette usually dictates that the new guy post an intro thread. So here we go.

I was just going to post a few general details, but I noticed that a handy little questionnaire was provided free-of-charge. So, let's go that route.


1. What do you do? (Hobbies, job)
I do research. A lot of it. I do other things occasionally. But not often.

2. Where are you from?
Born and raised in Denver. Lived all over the western US. Now I live in Houston.

3. Who is your favorite author?
Rand or Rostand.

4. What are your favorite films?
Quite a few. At the moment, my top favorites are "Inherit the Wind", "We the Living" and "Cyrano de Bergerac (1950)"

5. What music do you want played at your wedding?
Never gave it much thought. Don't much care.

6. At your funeral?
Play Mendelssohn's Wedding March. What does it matter to a dead guy?

7. This IS a gothic website, so... how do you want to die?
As long as I don't linger, I don't care.

8. What kind of casket would you want?
Again, dead. Cram me in a refrigerator box for all I care.

9. What's your FAVORITE outfit?
Don't really have one. I like all my outfits.

10. What's one thing you miss about being a little kid?
I miss playing football on the streets. My body is memory album of scars.

11. What's your favorite band?
Don't have an absolute favorite. If I had to choose one band and only one band to listen to for the rest of my life, it would probably be between Led Zeppelin, Oingo Boingo and Joy Division.

12. What kind of education do you have? What is/was/will be your major?
Currently a double major at university. Philosophy and history.

13. Why did you join?
I join boards that look interesting.

14. If the first 13 questions didn't give it away. What is your gender?
I have a penis.


There. Anything else you want to know, you can ask.

[HumanePain]

Welcome. I assume by Rand that you are referring to Ayn Rand. Why do you list her as your favorite author? Which stories do you like and why?

[Herakles]

She was a master of storytelling and plot integration. I also can't get enough of the benevolent sense of life in her novels. Which are, incidentally, the reasons I also love Rostand.

[discotheque_bex]

i think i love you.

[Lord Whiskerton]

Originally Posted by Herakles

8. What kind of casket would you want?
Again, dead. Cram me in a refrigerator box for all I care.

Would you allow me to feast on your rotting corpse? I would have to defrost you first......Anways, Welcome to the boards my good sir!

[JCC]

The fuck? You actually enjoy reading Ayn Rand?

[Herakles]

Originally Posted by JCC

The fuck? You actually enjoy reading Ayn Rand?

Yes...And?

[Malice In Wonderland]

I approve of Oingo Boingo.
And the refrigerator comment.

[Ophelia's Snorkel]

I particularly like the Mendelssohn remark. Nothing like unsettling already grieving loved ones. Kidding, I think it would make them laugh and endear you to them in memory.

[Mir]

I didn't know who Ayn Rand was, and had to look her up. I did read her theories on Objectivism, and her thoughts on collectivism and Statism. Thanks for the heads up. I'll happily avoid anything by her on my next visit to the book store.

[allyssa]

is the philosophy you are studying how to promote inequality and capitalist oppression???

[Alan]

Wow. I really would like to argue about Ayn Rand (hate the bitch), but that's because I thought you liked her because of her ideas (which are fucked up).
But I wasn't expecting that you liked her because of HOW she writes. That's just.... weird.


EDIT: Allyssa, I don't think so. That's why I find it weird. He specifically says it's about storytelling. To a level, that's even worse, but at least we can give him the benefit of the doubt and not assume he's an objectivist.

[allyssa]

humorously and terrifyingly the banking institutions are actually funding universities to teach rand.... I will try to find the link to the article....

[Alan]

Actually I just noticed he IS studying philosophy. That's scary.

[Herakles]

Originally Posted by Malice In Wonderland

I approve of Oingo Boingo.
And the refrigerator comment.

A shame we can never hope for a reunion.

Originally Posted by Ophelia's Snorkel

I particularly like the Mendelssohn remark. Nothing like unsettling already grieving loved ones. Kidding, I think it would make them laugh and endear you to them in memory.

I never understood people who undertook detailed planning of their own funeral as if they're going to be there to enjoy it.

Originally Posted by allyssa

is the philosophy you are studying how to promote inequality and capitalist oppression???

Define "inequality". And capitalism and oppression are inherently antithetical.

Originally Posted by Alan

Wow. I really would like to argue about Ayn Rand (hate the bitch), but that's because I thought you liked her because of her ideas (which are fucked up).
But I wasn't expecting that you liked her because of HOW she writes. That's just.... weird.


EDIT: Allyssa, I don't think so. That's why I find it weird. He specifically says it's about storytelling. To a level, that's even worse, but at least we can give him the benefit of the doubt and not assume he's an objectivist.

Assume away, sweetheart.

Originally Posted by allyssa

humorously and terrifyingly the banking institutions are actually funding universities to teach rand.... I will try to find the link to the article....

Actually, it's BB&T. Their CEO, John Allison, is an Objectivist. They are donating money to business schools to start courses studying the history, economics and morality of capitalism.

And you should know that BB&T refused to take government funds and saw this sub-prime nonsense on the horizon and wanted no part of it.

Originally Posted by Alan

Actually I just noticed he IS studying philosophy. That's scary.

Boo.

[Alan]

Ok, yeah, you're obviously a Rand fan if you believe capitalism and oppression are antithetical against the overwhelming historical evidence pointing otherwise.

[Herakles]

Originally Posted by Alan

Ok, yeah, you're obviously a Rand fan if you believe capitalism and oppression are antithetical against the overwhelming historical evidence pointing otherwise.

Such as?

...

[Alan]

Such as... the declaration of East Timor as an investment haven after the UDT staged a coup and massacred 40,000 landless farmers?
That's a good one.
Or closer to home and less brutal but equally revealing, how about the constantly decreasing average standard of living in America compared to 1960 standard on the face of less business regulation and increasing GDP?

[Herakles]

Originally Posted by Alan

Such as... the declaration of East Timor as an investment haven after the UDT staged a coup and massacred 40,000 landless farmers?
That's a good one.
Or closer to home and less brutal but equally revealing, how about the constantly decreasing average standard of living in America compared to 1960 standard on the face of less business regulation and increasing GDP?

So, a scuffle between hapless nations and equally hapless political groups in southern Asia is an indictment of capitalism?

And even if your SOL/GDP argument was true (and it isn't), what has that to do with capitalism? The US is far from a capitalist country. We are, at best, a mixed economy: a mixture of some freedoms and a whole hell of a lot of controls. Indeed, this nation's economy is more regulated today than it has been in decades.

Perhaps it would behoove us to define capitalism. Capitalism is the socio-economic system based on the recognition of individual rights. That is all. The government's proper function in a capitalist society is to protect its citizens from force, fraud and coercion and, otherwise, hands off (which is what laissez faire means). That means courts, law enforcement and military, and that's all. Complete separation of state and economy in the same manner as the separation of church and state.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Herakles

So, a scuffle between hapless nations and equally hapless political groups in southern Asia is an indictment of capitalism?

Obviously you don't know enough about East Timor, so why even try to make a judgment on it?
The fight in East Timor was an internal war, with the UDT helped by both Indonesia and the United States solely for business interests. The UDT was conformed of the wealthy landowners of East Timor, sympathizing with Portuguese fascism and reactionary against the popular demand for land reform, because that's 'anti-capitalist'

And even if your SOL/GDP argument was true (and it isn't)

http://www.urban.org/publications/306766.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/declkutt.htm
Let's not forget that a new house cost an average of $11,800 in the sixties, today it's at about $212,000; rent was $88 a month, and today it's an average of $1,200; and health insurance for a family was around $75 a month and today it is over $800. The minimum wage has increased sevenfold, but the cost of living has increased almost double that, being about 15 times more expensive while the dollar has less purchasing power.

what has that to do with capitalism?

That production keeps increasing and GDP is much much higher, while the population sees no fruits out of their labor.
In my own Mexico, since the implementation of NAFTA, a wet dream of capitalism, an end to trade barriers in the northern hemisphere of the continent, exports have tripled and yet workers have only seen a nine dollar increase in their wages PER MONTH.
This is a trend that never changes. Less business regulations always leads to further inequality and minimal wage increments of the average worker; and these wage raises are rendered meaningless when accounting to inflation, therefore rendering real wages lower than before.

The US is far from a capitalist country. We are, at best, a mixed economy: a mixture of some freedoms and a whole hell of a lot of controls. Indeed, this nation's economy is more regulated today than it has been in decades.

That's just a lie. Literally. What the fuck, you think the eight-year neo-con administration we had has been the biggest epoch of regulation?

Perhaps it would behoove us to define capitalism. Capitalism is the socio-economic system based on the recognition of individual rights. That is all.

Oh yeah? Ok, I'll invent my own definitions too.
Communism is all about free speech.
That's right.
Neither of the two has dick to do with economic theories. It's all about this I'm saying.

The government's proper function in a capitalist society is to protect its citizens from force, fraud and coercion and, otherwise, hands off (which is what laissez faire means).

The government's proper function in a capitalist society is the protection of property. Even Ayn Rand knows this.

[Igor]

Hi, Alan.

I, too, like Ayn Rand's style of writing. As English was her second language, she wrote very skillful prose. I recall in The Fountainhead that she described seagulls in the morning as bits of grey newspaper floating in the wind (though phrased better than I just then).

However, I don't care much for her philosophy. I think she underrates the importance of altruism.

[Alan]

As en English major you should understand that ignoring her cult-like philosophy, her works have very little literary value. The sole reason she is famous is through word-of-mouth around millionaire big shots that wanted to rationalize their not giving a shit about their workers.

[Herakles]

Originally Posted by Alan

Obviously you don't know enough about East Timor, so why even try to make a judgment on it?
The fight in East Timor was an internal war, with the UDT helped by both Indonesia and the United States solely for business interests. The UDT was conformed of the wealthy landowners of East Timor, sympathizing with Portuguese fascism and reactionary against the popular demand for land reform, because that's 'anti-capitalist'

Don't make assumptions, kiddo. You only hurt yourself.

Actually, I know quite a bit about the scuffle in ET. Indeed, you betray a lack of knowledge on the subject by classifying it as an simply "internal struggle". Indonesian forces invaded. Doesn't sound very internal.

The UDT would eventually form a (tenuous) alliance with Fretilin for independence from Indonesia.

Indeed, none of this matters to the argument. What the UDT wanted (which always seemed to be contradictory in one way or another) or what the US or Indonesia did is immaterial. That the Fretilin "reform" was largely a putsch of a weird Marxist/African psuedo-nationalist flavor doesn't matter. Capitalism is unconcerned with the piddling fisticuffs of nobody-nations--so long as they pose no physical threat to the citizens within whatever capitalist nation we are talking about. But there's the rub: there was no capitalist player in this dust-up. Nor would a capitalist nation seek to be involved in it. The US is not, and has not been for over a century, a capitalist nation.

Such is the source of many of our foreign and military policy blunders: believing that anything like this should matter to us in the long and then getting involved in it. The land reform proposed by the "independents" was indeed ridiculous and foolish, but they are not our children. Their destruction is their own problem.

Do you want to know what a proper capitalist response to the rile in East Timor would be? Thus: Well, looks mighty foolhardy to me--just keep out of our sandbox, kids.

http://www.urban.org/publications/306766.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/declkutt.htm
Let's not forget that a new house cost an average of $11,800 in the sixties, today it's at about $212,000; rent was $88 a month, and today it's an average of $1,200; and health insurance for a family was around $75 a month and today it is over $800. The minimum wage has increased sevenfold, but the cost of living has increased almost double that, being about 15 times more expensive while the dollar has less purchasing power.

Inflation is the culprit here. The inflationary policies of the Fed have destroyed the buying power of the dollar (which you mentioned). Inflation redistributes money from creditors to debtors. If I borrow $1,000 from you and in the interim of the borrowing and the repaying, the government goes on another printing spree, the purchasing power of the $1,000 I repay is less than that of the $1,000 I borrowed. And who is the biggest debtor in the country? The Federal-fucking-government.

Do let’s not fall into the trap of thinking of inflation as merely a rise in prices. It is the government’s destruction of the buying power of legal tender. Now, I’m not denying that prices have risen a bit in the subsequent half-century, but the overwhelming culprits is, and has been for decades, government-induced inflation.

In a capitalist society, there is no Fed and the only people who have any distinguishable effect on purchasing power are counterfeiters (which the Fed essentially is).

That production keeps increasing and GDP is much much higher, while the population sees no fruits out of their labor.
In my own Mexico, since the implementation of NAFTA, a wet dream of capitalism, an end to trade barriers in the northern hemisphere of the continent, exports have tripled and yet workers have only seen a nine dollar increase in their wages PER MONTH.
This is a trend that never changes. Less business regulations always leads to further inequality and minimal wage increments of the average worker; and these wage raises are rendered meaningless when accounting to inflation, therefore rendering real wages lower than before.

Actually, NAFTA is not a capitalist wet dream. Any capitalist (especially any capitalist economist) worth his salt knows that NAFTA is a sham. I don’t disagree that NAFTA has been an unmitigated failure. But NAFTA is “subsidized” free-trade, which, actually, isn’t really free-trade at all. Just more bureaucratic nonsense.

That's just a lie. Literally. What the fuck, you think the eight-year neo-con administration we had has been the biggest epoch of regulation?

You think that the New Right is a friend of capitalism? They are religious nitwits every bit as eager to seem as “compassionate” as any overzealous leftist.

Federal spending rose 68% under Bush. Twice as much as under Clinton. Farms bills, health and school subsidies up 44% and 47%, respectively. The Rx drug bill that will become an over $1 trillion liability in a decade. Sweeping grabs of executive power in national security and foreign affairs. Faith-based initiatives. No Child Left Behind Act. Many other incoherent foreign and domestic policies abounded. All under GW Bush. This man was no friend of capitalism.

I’m curious what you think neo-cons are. No one believed a word that came out of Bush’s mush-mouth for 8 years, why do you all believe him when he says he’s a “free-market guy”? (Or that he even knows what one is?)

Oh yeah? Ok, I'll invent my own definitions too.
Communism is all about free speech.
That's right.
Neither of the two has dick to do with economic theories. It's all about this I'm saying.

In fact, it has everything to do with economics. Individuals must have their right to gain and maintain the fruits of their efforts and that right must be protected lest you wish to invite either open civil war or open totalitarianism. All of which have a fundamental impact on economics.

This is a rather technical point, but it must be made. As to definitions: they identify the nature of the cognitive units subsumed under a given concept. That is their purpose. Words symbolize concepts, but they are not themselves the equivalent of concepts. So, it would be improper to say that definitions are the meanings of words.

Definitions’ cognitive role is to allow man to organize and integrate conceptual knowledge in a proper logical (that is, hierarchical chain. It also allows us to differentiate between other concepts. A definition must show the nature of the, the most critical and fundamental characteristics without which it would not be what it is.

So, in order for a definition to be objective, it must distinguish those essential characteristics of all the units subsumed under a particular concept. It must utilize all available knowledge to do this. So, my definition of capitalism does exactly this: I distill down the must distinguishing, essential and fundamental existential units under the concept. The genus: it is a socio-economic system. The differentia: the socio-economic that recognizes and respects individual rights (life, liberty, property, etc.) and all that is corollary to this.

The government's proper function in a capitalist society is the protection of property. Even Ayn Rand knows this.

Which is one of its functions, yes. Given that individuals have a right to their lives, they therefore have a right to sustain that life, which requires that they have the right to keep the fruits of their labor.

I was not denying this. Are you completely incapable of thinking in principles?


QUOTE=Igor;555752]Hi, Alan.

I, too, like Ayn Rand's style of writing. As English was her second language, she wrote very skillful prose. I recall in The Fountainhead that she described seagulls in the morning as bits of grey newspaper floating in the wind (though phrased better than I just then).

However, I don't care much for her philosophy. I think she underrates the importance of altruism.[/quote]

The question here is: what is your conception of altruism? And what do you believe Rand's was?

Originally Posted by Alan

As en English major you should understand that ignoring her cult-like philosophy, her works have very little literary value.

"Cult-like" is a common smear. Would you like to define that anti-concept and answer how exactly an arch-individualist commanded cultists?

The sole reason she is famous is through word-of-mouth around millionaire big shots that wanted to rationalize their not giving a shit about their workers.

Is that why her books sell hundreds of thousands of copies every year?

[Alan]

If we keep quoting this will become too big, but here's the gist of it. I reccomend you also try to write as such:

Indonesia had no problem with nationalist sentiments before they also became intertwined with the left, calling for land reform.
That you can't see how this is a blatant issue of business interests just baffles me.

And by the Fed you mean that privately owned institution the government doesn't control?

The eras of Reagan and both Bushes HAVE been objectively the period in history with the least regulation. All you're complaining about is the government help they give to already big corporations; which at least is something you're doing right, but why should it not be expected, especially if this were a Randian society in which the government only exists to "help and protect the strong from the weak"?

Individuals do not have 'individual freedom' under a system who can only persist if wage slavery exists in one way or another. If money is power, then it is laughable to believe that a worker and their employer are in equal ground. A genuine place for workers to have economic freedom is if those who WORK the means of production OWN the means of production.

"Cult-like" is more than a smear. It doesn't matter what Ayn Rand says when you can see the way she acted. For someone who, according to fans, defended the freedom of the individual, she sure was a bitch if you didn't agree with exactly what she believed. She said so herself: Objectivism is about economics, metaphysics, and aesthetics; it's a way to view the world in all aspects and it is perfect. If you don't have her views of aesthetics, you're just fooling yourself.

Her books seriously are primarily promoted by the Ayn Rand corporation, as our friend Allyssa has pointed out.
You know another book that is a best-seller? Dianetics. Does that mean L. Ron Hubbard wasn't a piece of shit?



And finally and more importantly, because I still ended up writing too fucking much, what justification do you find to private property?

[vindicatedxjin]

Yay! yet another texan!