|
Red
|
 |
October 23, 2011, 09:30:53 PM |
|
If you have ever read her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged and recognized it for what it really is, a philosophy book wrapped up as a work of fiction, it's pretty obvious that she didn't feel this way when the book was written. The main character has many famous lines, not the least of which, involves John Galt telling another character to lead a moral life by never letting the word "give" cross her lips.
I read the book differently. To me, the primary thrust of what you write about the word "give", was to never allow anyone to use the concept "required to give" as a weapon against you. To use it as a weapon requires the sanction of the victim. However, there are many examples of people making sacrifices themselves for the good of another. But none are required to make these sacrifices. They all do it willingly because to avoid the responsibility would compromise their own self interests. To anyone who hasn't read Atlas Shrugged. Read it. It's huge but there is not a second of wasted time in it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Make sure you back up your wallet regularly! Unlike a bank account, nobody can help you if you lose access to your BTC.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
rainingbitcoins (OP)
Sr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 728
Merit: 252
SmartFi - EARN, LEND & TRADE
|
|
October 24, 2011, 02:01:16 PM |
|
Answer my question, Atlas.
e: based on my interactions with you in that other thread, there is no way in hell you're not Atlas
I doubt it. Atlas was a hardcore objectivist. Ayn Rand's root premise regarding charity was that it always did more harm than good, and that (as an atheist) she believed that the Judeo-Christian tradition of aiding the poor was BS. Atlas has said a number of times that he doesn't follow Rand to the exclusion of all else. Also "I. Goldstein" never did answer the damn question. Behold the inefficiency of government. Except when it turns out to be terribly efficient. But in those cases you can just blame government intervention in private enterprise (no matter how much or little there happens to be) for the failures of private enterprise rather than having to face the truth. Fucking inefficient big government. What have they ever done for humanity besides getting us to the moon and inventing the Internet? |
|
|
|
grondilu
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1288
Merit: 1076
|
|
October 24, 2011, 03:23:18 PM |
|
Fucking inefficient big government. What have they ever done for humanity besides getting us to the moon and inventing the Internet?
"getting us to the Moon". You're a member of the Apolo expedition?? |
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
October 24, 2011, 03:43:35 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 24, 2011, 05:42:51 PM |
|
Fucking inefficient big government. What have they ever done for humanity besides getting us to the moon and inventing the Internet?
The government did not invent the Internet. At most, the Defense budget paid for it. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
October 24, 2011, 06:10:59 PM |
|
Fucking inefficient big government. What have they ever done for humanity besides getting us to the moon and inventing the Internet?
The government did not invent the Internet. At most, the Defense budget paid for it. In order for his argument to hold any water, he'd have to additionally argue that without DARPA funding, a computer network such as the internet would not have been created. Further, the internet didn't flourish (or indeed become known as the internet) until it was privatized. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
October 24, 2011, 07:38:01 PM |
|
Are you saying that without governments there'd be no wars? For real? |
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
October 24, 2011, 07:47:48 PM |
|
Are you saying that without governments there'd be no wars? For real?
Yep. Wars are expensive and destructive. They can only be paid for through taxes. Any private entity which engaged in war would quickly lose support of its customers and go out of business. There's no incentive to do so. |
|
|
|
|
I.Goldstein
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
October 24, 2011, 07:51:04 PM |
|
I disagree. If governments were a lot smaller and more decentralized there would be fewer and less devastating wars. There would be conflict but it would be very small skirmishes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
October 24, 2011, 07:53:42 PM |
|
I disagree. If governments were a lot smaller and more decentralized there would be fewer and less devastating wars. There would be conflict but it would be very small skirmishes.
If big governments mean big wars, small governments mean small wars, why wouldn't no governments mean no wars? |
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 24, 2011, 07:56:44 PM |
|
I disagree. If governments were a lot smaller and more decentralized there would be fewer and less devastating wars. There would be conflict but it would be very small skirmishes.
If big governments mean big wars, small governments mean small wars, why wouldn't no governments mean no wars? The wars would be reduced in scope, but a fued between large family clans (hatfields and McCoys?) is still a war of sorts. However, the scale of the conflict does matter. The other people who live in the area are likely to intercede. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
I.Goldstein
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
October 24, 2011, 07:57:47 PM |
|
There will always be government. Anarchy is only a decentralized society with very small governments possibly to the scale of individuals, if we are ever strong enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
JA37
|
|
October 24, 2011, 07:58:05 PM |
|
Are you saying that without governments there'd be no wars? For real?
Yep. Wars are expensive and destructive. They can only be paid for through taxes. Any private entity which engaged in war would quickly lose support of its customers and go out of business. There's no incentive to do so. So the tribal wars in Africa are ... what? Or the drug wars in South America? From what I can tell they seem to exist without government. Or is any entity with power to rule over others a government, even a voluntarily selected entity? |
|
|
|
I.Goldstein
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
October 24, 2011, 08:10:12 PM |
|
Are you saying that without governments there'd be no wars? For real?
Yep. Wars are expensive and destructive. They can only be paid for through taxes. Any private entity which engaged in war would quickly lose support of its customers and go out of business. There's no incentive to do so. So the tribal wars in Africa are ... what? Or the drug wars in South America? Instigated by the UN and/or larger nations. |
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
October 24, 2011, 08:16:14 PM |
|
There will always be government. Anarchy is only a decentralized society with very small governments possibly to the scale of individuals, if we are ever strong enough.
So let's instead talk about the nation-state. That is really what is being discussed when we talk about government today, since that is the most prevalent kind. War, as we know it, will cease to exist with the abolition (through knowledge of its nature) of the nation-state. It is only possible to fund such large, devastating conflicts through the use of taxation. Agree? |
|
|
|
|
I.Goldstein
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
October 24, 2011, 08:17:29 PM |
|
There will always be government. Anarchy is only a decentralized society with very small governments possibly to the scale of individuals, if we are ever strong enough.
So let's instead talk about the nation-state. That is really what is being discussed when we talk about government today, since that is the most prevalent kind. War, as we know it, will cease to exist with the abolition (through knowledge of its nature) of the nation-state. It is only possible to fund such large, devastating conflicts through the use of taxation. Agree? Agreed. However, in the end, all we are doing is scaling down sovereignty. Small sovereignty equals little to no wars. |
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
October 24, 2011, 08:17:32 PM |
|
So the tribal wars in Africa are ... what? Not even in the same ball park as the wars waged by nation-states, if they can even be called wars at all. Or the drug wars in South America? You mean the ones caused by nation states prohibiting the production, distribution, and use of certain substances? |
|
|
|
|
I.Goldstein
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
|
|
October 24, 2011, 08:18:27 PM |
|
So the tribal wars in Africa are ... what? Not even in the same ball park as the wars waged by nation-states, if they can even be called wars at all. Eh, the most murder occurs in African civil wars, my friend. Millions of lives. The UN rapes the remains. |
|
|
|
|
|
BitterTea
|
|
October 24, 2011, 08:20:30 PM |
|
Eh, the most murder occurs in African civil wars my friend. Millions of lives. The UN rapes the remains.
Is that what he was referring to by "tribal wars"? The Rwandan military and Hutu militia groups, notably the Interahamwe, systematically set out to murder all the Tutsis they could reach |
|
|
|
|
|
