Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
has anyone ever said all taxes are evil or we should let people starve? Of course not. Have you visited many other countries and seen how they handle poverty? I am guessing you have not. Maybe, before you judge you should do some research...and do you believe every thing you read? If you do, you need to wise up a little?
Ayn Rand's philosophy basically promotes letting people starve. That's the point. Professor Brat promotes Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy. Which is essentially the opposite side of the coin of Marxism. Rand believes that charity creates a need, and when we give people food or clothing or shelter, we are creating a class of dependent people who essentially suck the life out of everyone else, as their needs grow and grow and grow, and the number of people working to meet their needs shrinks and shrinks and shrinks. If we stopped charity, then people would learn to meet their own needs or die off. And the result would be a society of makers, rather than takers.
Ayn Rand's philosophy basically promotes letting people starve. That's the point. Professor Brat promotes Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy. Which is essentially the opposite side of the coin of Marxism. Rand believes that charity creates a need, and when we give people food or clothing or shelter, we are creating a class of dependent people who essentially suck the life out of everyone else, as their needs grow and grow and grow, and the number of people working to meet their needs shrinks and shrinks and shrinks. If we stopped charity, then people would learn to meet their own needs or die off. And the result would be a society of makers, rather than takers.
For the record, I am not endorsing Ayn Rand's world view. However, look at the last three sentences of your statement. That is what Rand believed but that is essentially what has happened in modern society. If someone agrees with that train of thought, she did have a point to make about human behaviour.
For the record, I am not endorsing Ayn Rand's world view. However, look at the last three sentences of your statement. That is what Rand believed but that is essentially what has happened in modern society. If someone agrees with that train of thought, she did have a point to make about human behaviour.
Most reactionaries have a point. She saw the flaws in Marxism, and formulated the other side of the coin. But it's just as flawed as Marxism. It's just as extreme. It's just as imbalanced.
The world is not black and white. The world is not made up of makers and takers. We all contribute. We all receive. Society is a complex system of give and take, it's a web with a vast number of connections. The flaw with any social theory that divides society is that it is divisive, and that serves no one. To address the weaknesses of humanity requires multiple strategies and approaches. Not just the "give to those in need" approach of communism, not just the "stand up or die" approach of objectivism. Balance and thoughtfulness are how we solve society's ills. Scalpels, not axes.
Ayn Rand's philosophy basically promotes letting people starve. That's the point. Professor Brat promotes Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy. Which is essentially the opposite side of the coin of Marxism. Rand believes that charity creates a need, and when we give people food or clothing or shelter, we are creating a class of dependent people who essentially suck the life out of everyone else, as their needs grow and grow and grow, and the number of people working to meet their needs shrinks and shrinks and shrinks. If we stopped charity, then people would learn to meet their own needs or die off. And the result would be a society of makers, rather than takers.
He does not promote it. He agrees with her thoughts on government and their role. He has not once said he agrees with her thoughts on charity.
Most reactionaries have a point. She saw the flaws in Marxism, and formulated the other side of the coin. But it's just as flawed as Marxism. It's just as extreme. It's just as imbalanced.
The world is not black and white. The world is not made up of makers and takers. We all contribute. We all receive. Society is a complex system of give and take, it's a web with a vast number of connections. The flaw with any social theory that divides society is that it is divisive, and that serves no one. To address the weaknesses of humanity requires multiple strategies and approaches. Not just the "give to those in need" approach of communism, not just the "stand up or die" approach of objectivism. Balance and thoughtfulness are how we solve society's ills. Scalpels, not axes.
But Rand's point that eventually those who are being supported financially in society will overtake those who can support them is being borne out.
Ayn Rand would be considered a RINO today given your views on abortion.
Ayn Rand was also a hypocrite.....Government was evil and needed to be kept out of people's lives ....except ....when she needed government programs such as social security and Medicare...Well..on second thought..... she may well be considered a good Republican after all.
Ayn Rand would be considered a RINO today given your views on abortion.
Ayn Rand was also a hypocrite.....Government was evil and needed to be kept out of people's lives ....except ....when she needed government programs such as social security and Medicare...Well..on second thought..... she may well be considered a good Republican after all.
We discussed the issue of Social Security and Medicare earlier. She felt, as do I, that taxes are forcibly taken from a person's earnings, therefore why should the benefits be declined?
Okie doke. Keep thinking Brat will lose because the nefarious Dem primary voters have some grand strategy....for a district that has been unbroken Republican since 1970. I don't know, a district that is 44 years rock solid Republican, who turned out to give a 12% margin of victory to the person they think should be the Republican candidate.....
Cantor's campaign believed he was ahead by 34 points, so the "conspiracy" to get Brat the win would involve a lot of Democrat operatives, given the 65k that did vote, and the 46 point swing from what Cantor was expecting.
And have you read the saga about Trammell and Dickinson, with Dickinson saying in May he was the Dem candidate, and the Dems saying no, he didn't do the right paperwork, Trammell announcing his campaign on Twitter yesterday, and Dickinson now running as an Independent write in, along with Libertarian James Carr. Yeah, really organized effort on behalf of the DNCC to sabotage Cantor...NOT. Brat ran a good primary campaign, and voters in VA-7 have been growing sick of Cantor for years. They picked their new guy, and he'll win that election handily.
But you keep believing in the DNCC. By all means...
Oh I don't care who wins this election, I am just happy to see Cantor lose and if a Tea Party Republican win this election, he will be nothing more than a little voice that no one listens to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
