5 Stupid things about Ayn Rand

[5thHorseman]

Tea Party are not Libertarians. They may think they are, but they're not. As T stated, they're a theocratic party. Look at Bachmann and Gohmert with their Muslim Brotherhod inside the State Department rubbish. Also, if you look at the Tea Party's newest Representatives, their Congressional voting record goes against the 'looking out for the little guy image', they vote 'big oil' and Koch, everytime. Populist pawns for hire and big government bitches like all the other Republicans.

Edit: I found out something interesting the other day. Turns out when you look at non-military personel hired by the government, Democrats make the government smaller and the Republicans make it larger, dramatically. Funny how people believe the chatter of politicians.

[Tiberius]

When people generally talk about the "size of the government" they don't mean the number of people that are hired by them, but rather the amount of power those people have, and the government in general has. Any government that has to govern over 300 million people will obviously be large, but it's whether they continually give themselves more power that is important.

Any sources for which parties increase the power of government? I saw an interesting graph earlier today which showed that Democrats more often raise the debt ceiling than Republicans.

[The Grand Nudger]

Debt Ceiling/Patriot Act

hmn....hmn....hmn..... (moving hands like a scale)

[jackman]

http://investmentwatchblog.com/guess-who...CP1VfZlR2E
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatte...-Limit.htm

[5thHorseman]

When people generally talk about the "size of the government" they don't mean the number of people that are hired by them, but rather the amount of power those people have, and the government in general has. Any government that has to govern over 300 million people will obviously be large, but it's whether they continually give themselves more power that is important.

Any sources for which parties increase the power of government? I saw an interesting graph earlier today which showed that Democrats more often raise the debt ceiling than Republicans.

This one is on public sector employment, but it's not the one I was thinking of, although it is similar. Cannot find the other one.

But if you break down the numbers, you will see that federal employment has increased by just 16,000 under Mr Obama, hardly a socialist transformation (and not much of a Keynesian stimulus either). Over his two terms, George W. Bush added 37,000 federal jobs; Ronald Reagan added 197,000 federal jobs in his two. Bill Clinton lost 139,000! Federal employment is some 350,000 down from when Reagan left office.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwoo...mic-policy


I'll try find the other article, it's more damning of Reagan, as this one is only the first 4 years, and after the start, just like his original tax cuts, the employment of public workers goes up.

[Tiberius]

Did you not read my post? I said that "size of government" doesn't generally mean the number of federal employees, but how much power the government gives them (and themselves). The "size" factor refers to how much the government invades our private lives, or how much they try to control.

Big Government = Lots of policy, regulation, control, etc.
Small Government = Minimal policy and regulation, with increased civil liberties.

My request for a source was for which party increased the power of government more, merely out of interest (if you had it).

[genkaus]

Oh? Care to point out the mis-characterizations and ad-homs?

Take a look at the video in the first post.

"Discussions started ostensibly for the reason of criticizing her" - No, when people start threads criticizing bible scripture they don't just do it 'ostensibly for the reason of criticizing it'. They do it for a more underlying reason, mainly to show that if something is stupid it should be treated as such. The same can be applied to this thread, and Ayn Rand's (in my opinion) retarded philosophies.

Actually, no, the same principle cannot be applied here. The bible has had a deep-rooted and far-reaching effect on societies, and politics throughout the world for centuries. The underlying reason for its criticism is to negate that effect.

Unless you are saying that Atlas Shrugged has had the same effect as the bible on today's society, there is simply no comparison between the two.

To say it is unwarranted or unnecassary, is foolish given the above point. If someone finds something stupid, they have every right to point out that it is stupid, make a thread saying it is stupid, post a video saying it is stupid. At the end of the day it's all in the interest of sharing knowledge in the hope that stupid ideals are treated as stupid ideals.

Then I look forward to you starting discussions on Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, Animal Farm and Panchatantra.

As for who keeps it in circulation, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference. If there are people out there who still parade these ideals around as though they are genius, and there are people who disagree, the people who disagree have a right to turn around and say why they think it's bollocks. Regardless of whether the subject matter is 2000 years old or 20, if there are people about who still think it is correct the people who want to point out otherwise can say so.

Its one thing to criticize ideas you come in contact with and quite another to bring up ideas simply for the purpose of criticism. And as for people parading around her "ideas", I've never seen anyone who commits to hers completely and this is one case where the author herself has stated that no middle-ground is acceptable.

Personally I'd never even heard of Ayn Rand until someone quoted her in this forum. What you or I think about who is most vocal on the subject is purely anecdotal.

No, its not. Not if a simple perusal of the comment reveals a predominant hatedom.

[5thHorseman]

Did you not read my post? I said that "size of government" doesn't generally mean the number of federal employees, but how much power the government gives them (and themselves). The "size" factor refers to how much the government invades our private lives, or how much they try to control.

Big Government = Lots of policy, regulation, control, etc.
Small Government = Minimal policy and regulation, with increased civil liberties.

My request for a source was for which party increased the power of government more, merely out of interest (if you had it).

Yes, I read your post.

The Economist seems to believe it's an employment thing.

As you can see, it has contracted under Barack Obama, as it did under Ronald Reagan; the real "big government" types were the two Bushes.

Given how Republicans go on about public sector employees whilst simultaneously removing civil liberties, it doesn't appear to be their definition either.

Nor Wikipedia's.

Big government is primarily defined by its size, a criterion that incorporates variables such as the number of employees, relative costs, and the "spheres of involvement"[clarification needed]. The concept can also be defined by the perceived role of government in society, the quality of services (that is, the impact of government effort), and the degree of democracy and societal representation.[3][4]

Finding something on increased power is seeming to be tough.....

Edit: I can't find much on expansion of power, but there's some here from the Reagan era onwards. It doesn't say anything good about any of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Ci...Reagan_era

[Napoléon]

Take a look at the video in the first post.

I did, I posted the fucking thing.

Again, point them out. Don't just sit there on your high horse. You're not going to get away with claiming there's ad-homs and misrepresentations in there without demonstrating it. Shouldn't be too much of a fucking ask considering you clearly think it so obvious.

Actually, no, the same principle cannot be applied here. The bible has had a deep-rooted and far-reaching effect on societies, and politics throughout the world for centuries. The underlying reason for its criticism is to negate that effect.

Unless you are saying that Atlas Shrugged has had the same effect as the bible on today's society, there is simply no comparison between the two.

It doesn't need to have the same effect at all to be comparable. I'm saying there is a similarity in the reasoning behind criticising both topics. Obviously that flew over your head.

I said:
"to show that if something is stupid it should be treated as such."

Where did I mention anything about the effect it has. You're missing the point of my comment if you think it had anything to do with the amount of effect either one has on society.

Then I look forward to you starting discussions on Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, Animal Farm and Panchatantra.

Since when does: Having the right to talk about something.

Equate with: Having an interest in talking about something.

I started the topic on Ayn Rand. Why am I then interested in those things you listed.

Its one thing to criticize ideas you come in contact with and quite another to bring up ideas simply for the purpose of criticism. And as for people parading around her "ideas", I've never seen anyone who commits to hers completely and this is one case where the author herself has stated that no middle-ground is acceptable.

I'm sorry, but do you even read what I'm saying?

I've just said your personal anecdotes don't mean shit. But you carried on talking about your personal experience. So what.

"bring up ideas simply for the purpose of criticism"

Would you like some straw with that man?

No, its not. Not if a simple perusal of the comment reveals a predominant hatedom.

Please stop straw manning, it's getting a tad tedious.

[Tiberius]

The concept can also be defined by the perceived role of government in society, the quality of services (that is, the impact of government effort), and the degree of democracy and societal representation.

How is that not what I argued?