Super Happy Liberal Hypocrite Quiz!

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

1. It is ahistorical
Sure it would be nice to live in a society where everyone could live free for themselves, and their histories, but it objectivity does not address what people actually must go through to be a human in this world.

What must people "go through" to be human?

2. It is theoretically abstract without actually addressing lived realities.
Mentioned above, it would be cool to live where we don't view people as superior or inferior based on race (a social construct not genetic), class (again a social construct), gender (social again since we tend to view people as male and female despite the fact that their is transsexuality, 7 different sexes, and gender bending), sexuality (aren't we all a bit multisexual?). However historically this hasn't been the case, as such, how can we just go "let's all be objective now" and forget the past which as Marx says -himself a noted sexist- "weighs like an alp on the present".

Umm...this is weird. Would you not agree that gender and race views are different than they were 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 500 years ago? Is it your contention that progress to something approaching an ideal is impossible simply because "it's never been that way"???

Also, Rand's core philosophies don't really require everyone to subscribe to such viewpoints. Rather, Rand's core philosophies teach you to reject those viewpoints for yourself and to treat them in others with the simple derision you apply to any other illogical human behavior.

3. It is therefore not radically contextual
You'd like to think that it could change overnight, but by claiming individuality without addressing the contemporary moment's themes of domination you're really paving the way for the dominant class to maintain their dominance while simulataneously giving them the basis to claim that they are not racist/classist/sexist/sexualist because giving subordinated peoples the same privileges that many dominant peoples were born with would be some sort of attack on the dominant class - which is the essence of neoliberalism. For example it's not all that worth it to claim objectivity when we live in a world where kids are sewing our soccer balls, tshirts, sneakers etc. for 12 cents a day. It's not going to change anything, it just clouds people's judgement of those in power.

The dominant class of today is the class that controls government. Rand's philosophy rejects their tool (violence). And since we pay for those tools, eliminating our support will eliminate their power. So I don't really see how this is a valid refutation. Furthermore, I'm not sure how anyone would claim that Rand's philosophy requires "overnight" change???

In conclusion then I feel that Rand has her heart in the right place, but she is not interventionist enough to exact the change necessary to get to the point where objectivity could actually work. In other words, the playing field for all humans is nowhere near even enough to all of a sudden say "lets all be objective now"

I think Rand would have a good laugh over your use of the words "for all humans". Rand would tell you that making decisions based on "all humans" is close to the height of stupidity.

not when we still have 30% of our minority population living in poverty, not when our jails are being filled with minorities to benefit the rich, and not when the rich can continue to maintain their power without being checked. For example we can all bag on W, or Clinton or whomever, but their terms end and their power diminishes, whereas when was the last time we went after and removed the Phil Knights, and Bill Gates of the world from their perch of unvoted dominance? Until this change happens I will see your Ayn Rand and raise you Stuart Hall and Paulo Freire - we gotta fuck shit up before we can be objective.

You've already "fucked shit up". That's your problem to begin with. Repeal your taxes. Repeal your laws. Dismantle any branch of government not concerned with the protection of the basic individual right of liberty. Do it slowly, if you feel it's necessary.

ryan198

Can't you see that lassez faire life would benefit those who are already in power, those that already have the privilege, those that are already dominating us? How is repealing taxes going to benefit the little kid in the Dominican Republic whose life depends on Baseball, Nike, or working in sugar factories? How is taking away taxes going to help improve schools in the inner city? How can you have objectivity without being on an even playing field? If the last 40 years that we've lived under Rand-ish neoliberalism have shown us anything is that the very rich will keep the money for themselves and not let it trickle down. So if we just repeal taxes, etc. how is this going to make a positive "objective" change in the future.

What I am saying is that before we can repeal taxes I want Bill Gates to go to the single worst public school in the United States and claim that his child will have the same educational and life opportunities that he/she would get at Gillman or whatever private school that child will go to. I want George W. Bush, and Cornel West to walk into a room and not have people assume things about them because of the hue of their skin. This can't happen if we go about objectivity the way Rand would like to. If we want a fair and just society to be objective in then the subordinated need to have a physical and ideological voice in this country (TV stations/newspapers/credit card companies/postions in political office/etc.) so that we are daily made conscious of the differences in opportunity between the priveleged and underprivileged (which is the Freirean model), we need to remove those who refuse to relinquish their power (the McLaren/Giroux/Guevara method), and then we can remove taxes and let people begin on a truly level playing field.

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

Can't you see that lassez faire life would benefit those who are already in power, those that already have the privilege, those that are already dominating us?

Can't you see that those dominating you are dominating you solely because they have the force of governments backing them up??? Lassez faire means no more patents, no more copyrights, no more tax breaks, no more tariffs, no more subsidies?

You think people like Bill Gates are "dominating" you, despite the fact that they do not force you to work for them or buy their products??? The same cannot be said for your government.

How is repealing taxes going to benefit the little kid in the Dominican Republic whose life depends on Baseball, Nike, or working in sugar factories?

No one's life "depends" on Baseball, Nike, or sugar factories. A good life depends on achievement. And when that Dominican boy achieves something, repealing taxes ensures that his achievements cannot be expropriated by the Dominican boy who does not achieve anything.

How is taking away taxes going to help improve schools in the inner city?

By ensuring that those schools earn their money.

How can you have objectivity without being on an even playing field?

By recognizing that the playing field is comprised of three elements: body, mind and environment and the fact that those three things are not universally even, nor should they be.

If the last 40 years that we've lived under Rand-ish neoliberalism have shown us anything is that the very rich will keep the money for themselves and not let it trickle down.

In the last 40 years, you've expanded the size and influence of governments to heights not seen in generations, and largely destroyed the concept of the individual. Rand and neoliberalism are nearly opposites.

So if we just repeal taxes, etc. how is this going to make a positive "objective" change in the future.

By ensuring that those who earn, own.

What I am saying is that before we can repeal taxes I want Bill Gates to go to the single worst public school in the United States and claim that his child will have the same educational and life opportunities that he/she would get at Gillman or whatever private school that child will go to. I want George W. Bush, and Cornel West to walk into a room and not have people assume things about them because of the hue of their skin. This can't happen if we go about objectivity the way Rand would like to. If we want a fair and just society to be objective in then the subordinated need to have a physical and ideological voice in this country (TV stations/newspapers/credit card companies/postions in political office/etc.) so that we are daily made conscious of the differences in opportunity between the priveleged and underprivileged (which is the Freirean model), we need to remove those who refuse to relinquish their power (the McLaren/Giroux/Guevara method), and then we can remove taxes and let people begin on a truly level playing field.

So you're a revenge hound, eh? Good luck with that.

If you want people to have a "physical and ideological voice", remove that which prevents them from speaking for themselves -- their obligations to another.

If you want remove those who refuse to relinquish their power, remove that which sanctions it and supports it -- your laws and taxes.

ryan198

farfromglorified wrote:

Can't you see that those dominating you are dominating you solely because they have the force of governments backing them up??? Lassez faire means no more patents, no more copyrights, no more tax breaks, no more tariffs, no more subsidies?

You think people like Bill Gates are "dominating" you, despite the fact that they do not force you to work for them or buy their products??? The same cannot be said for your government.

They are dominating me because they ARE our government. They choose who gets voted, what they sanction, and who they sanction for. If said politicians don't do so they get executed (from King to Hussein), or don't get money from corporate leaders to push their next campaign. Therefore the real people with power in this country are our company owners who never get voted in or out but have a large base of power through money. The illusion is that you have a choice, that just because you don't work for microsoft or buy microsoft that it doesn't have an influence on your life...well that's just plain bullshit.

farfromglorified wrote:

No one's life "depends" on Baseball, Nike, or sugar factories. A good life depends on achievement. And when that Dominican boy achieves something, repealing taxes ensures that his achievements cannot be expropriated by the Dominican boy who does not achieve anything.

Are you fucking insane...do you understand that you don't have a choice when it comes to putting food on the table? Have you ever lived in, or known anyone that has had absolutely nothing to the point that they would die if they didn't sell drugs, play baseball, work 80 hour days for Nike? How can you achieve when you don't have anything to achieve in?

farfromglorified wrote:

By ensuring that those schools earn their money.

How? By taking away their money through things like NCLB? Doing better on standardized tests that are built for the dominant classes, since they are the ones who can afford to take test preps, get schooling from good instructors, and in schools that have things like books from the year 2000?

farfromglorified wrote:

By recognizing that the playing field is comprised of three elements: body, mind and environment and the fact that those three things are not universally even, nor should they be.

Why? I'm guessing the person telling you this is someone who was not brought up in a working class environment. You just don't get it, that's what rich people like Ayn Rand say to ease their minds.

farfromglorified wrote:

In the last 40 years, you've expanded the size and influence of governments to heights not seen in generations, and largely destroyed the concept of the individual. Rand and neoliberalism are nearly opposites.

Rand and neoliberalism are NOT nearly opposites. Government has little or no power anymore it's in corporations owned by collections of INDIVIDUALS. We live in a world where 1/2 of the richest countries in the world are corporations, and you are trying to tell me that government influences stuff, that's just wrong. Especially when you see who is in government, and how they get into and remain in it.

farfromglorified wrote:

By ensuring that those who earn, own.

Sounds earily like a slaveowner mentality to me.

farfromglorified wrote:

So you're a revenge hound, eh? Good luck with that.

In capitalism money is what controls it's pretty simple...that's neoliberalism, the rolling back of government control and movement toward corporate control...that's rand-ISH. It's fucking this world up. Morover, Revenge is the word people who have privilege use when those who are dominated wish to regain privilege. That's not revenge that is justice.

farfromglorified wrote:

If you want people to have a "physical and ideological voice", remove that which prevents them from speaking for themselves -- their obligations to another.

If you want remove those who refuse to relinquish their power, remove that which sanctions it and supports it -- your laws and taxes.

Where do people get their information of the day? Where do people learn? Who controls what we see, hear, and what we cherish? Laws and taxes do NOT. It's corporately controlled media centers like FOX/DISNEY/Westinghouse etc. owned by the few but has the ideological control of the many. I say take those motherfuckers out and start a new publcily centered mediated world. Again that's not revenge, or jealousy that's a need to have more voices, majority voices, heard...not just the words of the privileged few that you so willingly listen to and love.

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

They are dominating me because they ARE our government. They choose who gets voted, what they sanction, and who they sanction for. If said politicians don't do so they get executed (from King to Hussein), or don't get money from corporate leaders to push their next campaign. Therefore the real people with power in this country are our company owners who never get voted in or out but have a large base of power through money.

This is a fascinating conspiracy view you paint, but I have a lot of trouble marrying it to a world wherein anti-corporate politicians are still regularly elected. Can you even explain, if such corporate evil-doers hold the true power in this country, why we have corporate taxation?

The illusion is that you have a choice, that just because you don't work for microsoft or buy microsoft that it doesn't have an influence on your life...well that's just plain bullshit.

Again, I'm having trouble marrying this to a world where companies like Enron go bankrupt, or a world where fortunes are regularly lost when consumers simply choose to withhold their money.

Are you fucking insane...

No.

do you understand that you don't have a choice when it comes to putting food on the table?

Really? So no choices were involved in whatever you had for dinner tonight?

Have you ever lived in, or known anyone that has had absolutely nothing to the point that they would die if they didn't sell drugs, play baseball, work 80 hour days for Nike?

So you believe that there are people directly born into a situation where they have only 3 options: sell drugs, play baseball or work 80 hour days for Nike? Can you name one?

How can you achieve when you don't have anything to achieve in?

Every single person alive has a world to achieve in.

How? By taking away their money through things like NCLB? Doing better on standardized tests that are built for the dominant classes, since they are the ones who can afford to take test preps, get schooling from good instructors, and in schools that have things like books from the year 2000?

NCLB -- a standardized path implemented by a federal government without any consideration to the wishes of a community is what I'm railing against, not supporting.

Separating education from forced taxation requires that a school earn its income, and that means it must directly appeal to the wishes of the community that supports it.

Why? I'm guessing the person telling you this is someone who was not brought up in a working class environment.

I was brought up in a family where my father was too drunk to work and my mother was a waitress and then a social worker. I'd advise you not to make any assumptions about the environment I grew up in.

You just don't get it, that's what rich people like Ayn Rand say to ease their minds.

Why would my mind need easing?

Rand and neoliberalism are NOT nearly opposites.

Neo-liberalism requires the marriage of government and corporations. Rand requires the complete separation of the two.

Government has little or no power anymore it's in corporations owned by collections of INDIVIDUALS.

Care to justify this at all? Government has more power than ever, measured by its own size and influence. Government now infringes on more aspects in our daily lives than ever in American history. All the corporations in this country combined generate roughly $12T annually. The federal government alone now expropriates 1/12 of that. The vast majority of the "evil" corporations you would likely cite are owned not by a few individuals but rather average 401k stockholders and other investors, the very people you're pretending to defend.

We live in a world where 1/2 of the richest countries in the world are corporations, and you are trying to tell me that government influences stuff, that's just wrong.

So the government has no influence in the War in Iraq? The government had no influence in the events of 9/11? The government had no influence in the trillions expropriated in the past year? The government had no influence in the incarceration of millions of Americans?

Especially when you see who is in government, and how they get into and remain in it.

Again, the very people you're pretending to defend still elect those leaders.

Sounds earily like a slaveowner mentality to me.

How so? A slaveowner earns nothing, which is the exact opposite of what I said.

In capitalism money is what controls it's pretty simple...that's neoliberalism, the rolling back of government control and movement toward corporate control...that's rand-ISH.

No. Neoliberalism is marrying corporations and government. It's putting the force of government into the hands of a few, and it will be the death of this world if it goes unchecked.

If you believe Ayn Rand wants goverments and business in bed together, you don't know anything about Ayn Rand.

It's fucking this world up. Morover, Revenge is the word people who have privilege use when those who are dominated wish to regain privilege. That's not revenge that is justice.

I'm sure to you revenge and justice are no different. An eye for an eye.....

When a slave enslaves his master, that's revenge. When a slave destroys that which makes slavery possible, that's justice. The oppression you're lamenting is made possible by the force your governments have monopolized, now being wielded by corporations, unions, and other special interests groups who understood your game better than you do.

Where do people get their information of the day?

From their own resources, or from whomever they wish to trade for it.

Where do people learn?

From their own resources, or from whomever they wish to trade for it.

Who controls what we see, hear, and what we cherish?

We do, or whomever we wish to trade our control to.

Laws and taxes do NOT. It's corporately controlled media centers like FOX/DISNEY/Westinghouse etc. owned by the few but has the ideological control of the many. I say take those motherfuckers out and start a new publcily centered mediated world. Again that's not revenge, or jealousy that's a need to have more voices, majority voices, heard...not just the words of the privileged few that you so willingly listen to and love.

"Take those motherfuckers out" isn't revenge, huh? The "voice" you speak of sounds like nothing more than a gun.

ryan198

sometimes a gun is the best way...peace is the only way to keep those in power in power.

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

sometimes a gun is the best way...peace is the only way to keep those in power in power.

And there you go....you've now justified every injustice you previously pretended to attack.

If the gun is "the best way", on what grounds can you reject those whose guns are aimed at you?

floyd1975

ryan198 wrote:

sometimes a gun is the best way...peace is the only way to keep those in power in power.

Mao Tse-Tung said something similar to that. He was a nifty leader.

ryan198

farfromglorified wrote:

And there you go....you've now justified every injustice you previously pretended to attack.

If the gun is "the best way", on what grounds can you reject those whose guns are aimed at you?

I'm not sure that I've justified having guns aimed at me though I'm sure some things I have knowingly and unknowingly done have probably earned me that fate. I'm just saying if someone is trying to take your land, claim that they are developing, and then, given your upbringing, based around a self-sufficient agrarian society put you in a near-impossible situation I don't think that fighting back with force to retain that which is rightfully yours is all that ludicrous.

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

I'm not sure that I've justified having guns aimed at me though I'm sure some things I have knowingly and unknowingly done have probably earned me that fate.

I don't know everything you done. All I know is that, above, you said that the best solution to your problem was the use of guns. If you believe you have that right, so does everyone else.

I'm just saying if someone is trying to take your land, claim that they are developing, and then, given your upbringing, based around a self-sufficient agrarian society put you in a near-impossible situation I don't think that fighting back with force to retain that which is rightfully yours is all that ludicrous.

How in God's name can you claim ownership of land when you're about to demonstrate that the only right of ownership extends from violence???

ryan198

farfromglorified wrote:

I don't know everything you done. All I know is that, above, you said that the best solution to your problem was the use of guns. If you believe you have that right, so does everyone else.



How in God's name can you claim ownership of land when you're about to demonstrate that the only right of ownership extends from violence???

Ownership, particularly corporate ownership, is necessarily violence...unless it is collective, whether it be ideologically or physically, then one person or group of persons is necessarily gaining more from a relationship than another. For example in a business as an owner you pay someone less than they are worth to your company, that's how you gain profit. As such you are necessarily violating them. Even if someone feels that they are compensated fairly, in a profitable company, the owner always makes more than the physical labor that went into the product was actually worth. They claim it to be intellectual, and that it is their product so that they should make money from it, but why? Why do you need a profit from what you make? Is there no collective goodwill for the betterment of humanity?

Not in free market capitalism. In free market capitalism the goal is to reduce every individual to monetary worth through what they benefit society. I fail to see how this could possibly work without evening the playing field for all, it makes no sense. That's the neoliberal push, the WTO, Corporate Welfare, Trickle Down Economics, Pull Yerself up by the bootstraps Reaganite America, the rollback of corporate taxes, kickbacks, etc. Not all of that is Randian, but certainly some essences of her beliefs are what inspired Reagan's handlers into making this selfish mess we have today.

farfromglorified

ryan198 wrote:

Ownership, particularly corporate ownership, is necessarily violence...unless it is collective, whether it be ideologically or physically, then one person or group of persons is necessarily gaining more from a relationship than another.

Hehe. Did you say that to yourself the last time you ate?

For example in a business as an owner you pay someone less than they are worth to your company, that's how you gain profit.

No, that's how I go out of business because my competitor simply pays them what they're worth and I then have no employees.

As such you are necessarily violating them.

Does the reverse hold true for the minimum wage then, since those who make it are being paid more than what they're worth?

Even if someone feels that they are compensated fairly, in a profitable company, the owner always makes more than the physical labor that went into the product was actually worth.

Not very many companies make twice their investment per year in profit, so that doesn't really make a lot of sense.

They claim it to be intellectual, and that it is their product so that they should make money from it, but why?

For the same reason you wish to profit from your physical labor. If I task you with digging a ditch, do I have a right to withhold your payment?

Why do you need a profit from what you make?

So that I can make something else.

Is there no collective goodwill for the betterment of humanity?

Let me know when I can eat "collective goodwill".

Not in free market capitalism. In free market capitalism the goal is to reduce every individual to monetary worth through what they benefit society.

No. The goal of free market capitalism is to assign every individual's labor a value based on the perceived benefit of that labor to society.

I fail to see how this could possibly work without evening the playing field for all, it makes no sense. That's the neoliberal push, the WTO, Corporate Welfare, Trickle Down Economics, Pull Yerself up by the bootstraps Reaganite America, the rollback of corporate taxes, kickbacks, etc. Not all of that is Randian, but certainly some essences of her beliefs are what inspired Reagan's handlers into making this selfish mess we have today.

Neoliberalism, kickbacks, the WTO and corporate welfare have nothing to do with capitalism. They have everything to do with the monopoly known as government. The only thing on your list that applies to Rand is the rollback of corporate taxes, but you forgot the rollback of individual taxes as well.

gue_barium

You know, FFG, existentialism had its kick in the '40's and beyond, on the heels of Einsteins relativity theorem, still, Rand and Mailer came and went (though Norman is still singing a few good songs in his 80's) and if there's anything the world could have less of is religion, and its dogmatic approach to Everything.

You question Goodwill? Yes, you can eat it. I mean, really, just because you can plunk a few dollars down at the grocery store, without a thought, shouldn't allow you to forget that the good work of many people went into the contents of your grocery bag, and eventually your stomach. Nobody has to do what they do. I get the feeling you're of the ilk that prefers that there are those who would take care of you.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

You question Goodwill? Yes, you can eat it.

Really? I can eat goodwill? How?

I mean, really, just because you can plunk a few dollars down at the grocery store, without a thought, shouldn't allow you to forget that the good work of many people went into the contents of your grocery bag, and eventually your stomach.

I didn't forget them, you did. I paid them something they value. You just tell them that you appreciate their efforts and demand the products of their labor.

Nobody has to do what they do.

I completely agree! No one has to do what they do, including them.

I get the feeling you're of the ilk that prefers that there are those who would take care of you.

That feeling would be quite wrong. No one has an obligation to take care of me.