For my Libertarian friends

Henry Plainview wrote: Epignosis wrote: Here's a question for you: Should women without jobs, who keep having children but rely on the government: A) Have their kids taken away B) Stop receiving support C) Be sterilized (the US has been there, by the way) D) Be forced into labor E) All of the above F) None of the above G) Other You mean like lazy single welfare moms who watches Maury instead of trying to find a job? Although of course people don't seem to take into consideration that someone has to take care of the kids as well. I question how many of those people actually exist, since people usually are more or less rational and sleeping around without a condom is not rational, but even if someone does try to exploit the system, I don't see how one could justly do any of the first four options.   And I believe that the US was sterilizing retarded people, not moochers.

This is a hypothetical, general question.  Place whatever restrictions and qualifications on it you want.

^ Where do they pay property taxes? They don't make enough money to purchase property and even if they did would be eventually caught by the IRS or the State for not paying taxes. How can a employer collect taxes on them?  The SS number they gave him would be phony. 

Henry Plainview wrote: Epignosis wrote: "Greed is good" isn't what I'm talking about.  I don't believe everything Rand believes. (Although in terms of building a productive economic system, greed is an integral part...almost no one starts a business just because they want the nice people to have yogurt.  When Rand speaks of "greed," I don't think she means being a dick to get money.  She's talking about not depending on other people to make your fortune, and that the desire for wealth (in theory at least) would drive businesses to compete and provide consumers with a choice of excellent products and services.). Paul wrote to the Thessalonians against moochers:  6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."  11We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. 13And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.  14If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. In other words, in terms of being practical, you earn your keep.  That's certainly in line with much of Rand's ideas...in that vein remember that Rand wouldn't support government bailouts for businesses. The desire to be productive and make money is not the same thing as greed, and as far as I can tell, she really means the true definition of greed, otherwise she wouldn't think altruism is evil. She just doesn't think greed is a bad thing. Granted, I haven't struggled through Atlas Shrugged so maybe I'm misinterpreting her, but I read the Wikipedia article! But even if greed does not mean acting like a dick, consciously only acting in your personal self-interest is being a dick.   Semi-related, I once read an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that said that the reason some people make more money is because their job brings more satisfaction to people, therefore we should tax them less since they are bringing the most benefit to society. An idea like that is fascinating to me, because it's so obviously stupid that I have no idea where to begin arguing against it.

I read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Anthem, as well as many essays by her "followers" (imagine that- people had followers even before Twitter!), and I think I know what she means.

Charity is okay by Rand- it really is...so long as you, the person with the pursestrings, want to give to charity.

What she opposes would be things like government bailouts (which is a form of altruism), os socialistic tendencies to "spread the wealth," because that means the people who worked for what they had would have to share it with those who don't have (whether those who don't have worked or not).

It's like this: A man eats in a restaurant and gets in a conversation with his waiter.  The waiter talks about how we all need to "spread the wealth" (an altruistic ideal).  So when the bill comes, the man tips nothing, but informs the waiter that he will give his 20% to several homeless people on the street.  The waiter is pissed.

That's the sort of thing Rand is getting at, I think.




Here's a question for you: Should women without jobs, who keep having children but rely on the government:

A) Have their kids taken away
B) Stop receiving support
C) Be sterilized (the US has been there, by the way)
D) Be forced into labor
E) All of the above
F) None of the above
G) Other

StyLaZyn wrote: JJLehto wrote:   It is a tough one. I am torn. I do not advocate "amnesty" because as you said it IS illegal and you can't just say "ah fine y'all can stay" but I guess it's the softie liberal in me (I hate him sometimes) but I just can not punish people that want to come to America for their betterment. I mean that is what out country was, (supposed to be) about. The founders never thought we'd be exploited by immigrants though. It pisses me off I have to pay for illegal immigrants using our sustem for their personal benefit. Like Health Care.

Yeah, and although never explicitly stated, (that I know of) most of the founder fathers, and America in general only meant that for immigrants that were educated and skilled and could contribute to society.
That's why they had no problem with the wave of German immigrants, but had major problems with...well everyone else.
Honestly, we can only do so much on our side.
Part of it is really up to Mexico...they COULD crack down on people entering illegally. I mean Mexico actually has VERY strict immigration rules, illegal and legal.
Unless we step up border patrol like one hundred fold

StyLaZyn wrote: JJLehto wrote:   It is a tough one. I am torn. I do not advocate "amnesty" because as you said it IS illegal and you can't just say "ah fine y'all can stay" but I guess it's the softie liberal in me (I hate him sometimes) but I just can not punish people that want to come to America for their betterment. I mean that is what out country was, (supposed to be) about. The founders never thought we'd be exploited by immigrants though. It pisses me off I have to pay for illegal immigrants using our sustem for their personal benefit. Like Health Care.

Illegal immigration is the sh*ttiest situation ever.  Why?

If a pregnant woman has a child in the US, that child is a US citizen by law.  Yet children pay no taxes until they're at least 15...but the child's parents pay nothing.

That child can go to school and have all the benefits that come with being an American without the parents paying a dime.

At the same time, what heartless ass would send the parents back home and leave the child here?

Still, I have a definite opinion about the subject.

JJLehto wrote:   It is a tough one. I am torn. I do not advocate "amnesty" because as you said it IS illegal and you can't just say "ah fine y'all can stay" but I guess it's the softie liberal in me (I hate him sometimes) but I just can not punish people that want to come to America for their betterment. I mean that is what out country was, (supposed to be) about.

StyLaZyn wrote: JJLehto wrote: Garion81 wrote: Coming from a state where Illegal immigration is a huge issue Sales Tax is the only way illegal immigrants pay taxes.  Certainly the shady employer that hires them doesn't withhold money and send it to the state, and yet they use all the services that taxpayers use and overload a system not meant to handle them. California would not be broke if there were a better way of taxing these people. As for the business I say make it a felony to hire an illegal immigrant and you might see a drop when some the owners of these businesses get put in jail.  I do feel empathy to the illegal immigrant but there has to be something done about this situation.  Ignoring it, building walls there has to be some better ideas. So right now in California the sales tax is a good thing. 100% agreed. That's another difference between libertarians and Republicans. Reps talk a big game about cracking down on illegal immigration but they will never do anything. Because they need those immigrants to be used as cheap labor for businesses. And I have NO problem with immigration at all, and I do feel for the illegals as well...they are just hoping to do what all our families did by coming here...but it's gotta be legal. And yes, walls aren't going to solve anything, people who hire them have to be punished. As a traditional Democrat, I agree as well. But in addition, I feel if they came into the country illegally, they need to be punished as a criminal aka trespassing or the like.

It is a tough one. I am torn.
I do not advocate "amnesty" because as you said it IS illegal and you can't just say "ah fine y'all can stay" but I guess it's the softie liberal in me (I hate him sometimes) but I just can not punish people that want to come to America for their betterment. I mean that is what out country was, (supposed to be) about.

And as for Ayn Rand I will admit I do not know much of here so I did some quick research.
She actually advocates "rational self interest" aka selfishness and is against altruism?!
Reminds me of my one friend at school who is libertarian...after a long debate he finally just said, "its this simple, as long as I have my money I don't care."
Money is good, and obviously we all want money. My problem is GREED. The excessive hoarding of money, having so much it's really un necessary...just for the sake of it. Doing anything/crushing people for it.
And libertarianism is the epitome of greed.
IMHO of course

StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: Paul wrote to the Thessalonians against moochers:  6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."  11We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. 13And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.  14If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. 15Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.   Wow! They should post that at the Welfare sign-up line along with Christians not allowed.

And...I tend to agree.

"Greed is good" isn't what I'm talking about.  I don't believe everything Rand believes.

(Although in terms of building a productive economic system, greed is an integral part...almost no one starts a business just because they want the nice people to have yogurt.  When Rand speaks of "greed," I don't think she means being a dick to get money.  She's talking about not depending on other people to make your fortune, and that the desire for wealth (in theory at least) would drive businesses to compete and provide consumers with a choice of excellent products and services.).

Paul wrote to the Thessalonians against moochers:

 ⁶In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching[a] you received from us. ⁷For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, ⁸nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. ⁹We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. ¹⁰For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

 ¹¹We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. ¹²Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. ¹³And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.

 ¹⁴If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed. ¹⁵Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother.

In other words, in terms of being practical, you earn your keep.  That's certainly in line with much of Rand's ideas...in that vein remember that Rand wouldn't support government bailouts for businesses.




Edited by Epignosis - July 16 2009 at 15:35

Henry Plainview wrote: Epignosis wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: James wrote: Alex isn't here... he loves Ayn Rand.  Well, besides Alex. But he doesn't count, for reasons we have all agreed upon behind his back. ;-) I never said I thought Rand was terrible either. I like her ideas in theory, but she's a sh*tty writer. Isn't "Greed is good" fundamentally incompatible with Christianity? Jesus was not exactly an egoist...