Ayn Rand's Utopia

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 12:29:21 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 08:56:46 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

I still don't understand what you think MY system is that is somehow
unfair.

This is YOUR system, peterson:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_e...ng_to_his_need

Any questions?

That isn't my system,

That IS your system, peterson

although I do consider the idea ethically sound


Then you are an evil S** AND and idiot.


and something that can represent one component of a healthy, happy,
fair society.

The worker who has little free time left after working 70 hours per week should feel "happy" about helping a lazy, total stranger (via having his money/time stolen) who might very well despise that worker's guts for some reason?

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 12:36:36 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:10:00 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:56:22 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:46:30 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

I did answer. Roland's company is well respected. For the quality of
design, for the quality of product, for the quality of service.

That doesn't change the fact that he is an *******.

I read that as "paragon". Or if you mean something different, say it.

Seven letters, begins with a vowel...

Evolved?

Try a noun, not an adjective. You must be the only person unable to figure this out.

We really don't care what ugha might have accomplished.

Maybe you don't. But you've hijacked a comment I made to Rich, and it
was entirely relevant given that Rich was accusing somebody who
clearly has significant personal accomplishments of not understanding
that concept.

Everyone has significant personal accomplishments, but as was pointed out to you ugha seems to want to marginalize the accomplishments of many others.

I've marginalized nobody.

That is because you are intellectually incapable of doing so.

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 11:42:21 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 12:36:36 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:10:00 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:56:22 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 07:46:30 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

I did answer. Roland's company is well respected. For the quality of
design, for the quality of product, for the quality of service.

That doesn't change the fact that he is an *******.

I read that as "paragon". Or if you mean something different, say it.

Seven letters, begins with a vowel...

Evolved?

Try a noun, not an adjective. You must be the only person unable to figure this out.

Enabler?

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-6, wrote:

Rich's opinions are as valid as ugha's, perhaps more so in fact, in that Rich
at least tries to tell things as they are, rather than regurgitate socialist
propaganda the way both you and ugha do.

In other words, what matters is whether a poster agrees with you, not whether
he is well-educated or has accomplishments in the real world to his credit.

While that isn't an entirely invalid kind of reasoning, if it happens that
you're right and they're wrong, as, of course, you would believe... surely you
can see that it's _unpersuasive_ to outside observers who have not yet made up
their minds about the controversy in question.

John Savard

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 10:29:21 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

That isn't my system, although I do consider the idea ethically sound
and something that can represent one component of a healthy, happy,
fair society.

Practical attempts to implement that idea in the real world have been less than
"ethically sound".

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs... however,
has anyone really tried to implement it? Or has it never been anything but a
slogan for demagogues?

Looking Backward, by Edward Bellamy - and its lesser-known sequel, Equality -
try to illustrate a civilized, democratic society run along such lines.

I have to admit, I found them... hilarious. Designing a society around making
water flow uphill would make about as much sense. Abolish capitalism, and
inventions like electric self-cleaning sewers will follow as a matter of
course. Yeah, right.

People work, they get to keep what they make, and if they want more, they can
work harder. What's so unfair about that?

Well, we look around us, and see massive inequalities in wealth and poverty -
and we're right that _something_ is wrong.

But to find a resolution of this question, I think that you have to think
outside the box. Basically, both leftists - with the "labor theory of value" of
Karl Marx - and right-wingers, with their claim that _anyone_ can succeed if
they just stop being lazy - forget _why_ there is often not enough to go around.

Which means that how you distribute the "not enough" is not the real question.

The story of Margaret Sanger may be instructive. First she was jailed and
harassed when she expressed progressive political views, and sought to help the
poor to limit their families so that they could support their children better
that they might rise in the world.

But the persecution and harassment stopped when she switched her apparent
politics, but not her work for birth control, by instead speaking of protecting
the rich from the hordes of the poor.

There are interesting articles about this history that conclude therefrom that
she was unfairly vilified as someone with eugenic sentiments.

John Savard

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 8:45:36 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 8:46:32 AM UTC-6, wsne... wrote:

Rich's opinions are as valid as ugha's, perhaps more so in fact, in that Rich
at least tries to tell things as they are, rather than regurgitate socialist
propaganda the way both you and ugha do.

In other words, what matters is whether a poster agrees with you, not whether
he is well-educated or has accomplishments in the real world to his credit.

The vast majority of what ugha writes in this forum is biased nonsense. Maybe he appears somewhat less idiotic on moderated groups?

His presumed expertise in one area does not mean that his musings in other areas should deserve any more respect or carry any more weight than anyone else's. Think "Dixie Chicks."

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 8:59:18 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 10:29:21 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

That isn't my system, although I do consider the idea ethically sound
and something that can represent one component of a healthy, happy,
fair society.

Practical attempts to implement that idea in the real world have been less than
"ethically sound".

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs...
however,
has anyone really tried to implement it?

Various forms of slavery were examples of it, as was Soviet-style communism. Governments' redistribution of wealth is another example, to a large degree.

People work, they get to keep what they make, and if they want more, they can
work harder. What's so unfair about that?

There is nothing unfair about it.

Well, we look around us, and see massive inequalities in wealth and poverty -
and we're right that _something_ is wrong.

I gave an example some time ago that if the total assets of Walmart were to be evenly distributed among its current employees, the money would cover about two years of wages and then everyone of them would need new jobs.

So WHAT "inequality of wealth" is it to which you refer?

The story of Margaret Sanger may be instructive. First she was jailed and
harassed when she expressed progressive political views, and sought to help the
poor to limit their families so that they could support their children better
that they might rise in the world.

You'll have to explain why, exactly, family size was ANY of Sanger's business in the first place.

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 3:28:05 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 8:59:18 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

The story of Margaret Sanger may be instructive. First she was jailed and
harassed when she expressed progressive political views, and sought to help the
poor to limit their families so that they could support their children better
that they might rise in the world.

You'll have to explain why, exactly, family size was ANY of Sanger's business
in the first place.

Giving people the tools to control the size of their own families was what
Margaret Sanger was originally trying to do; her opponents were the ones who
were trying to force people to have large families by denying them access to
contraceptive information. So your remark has it backwards.

John Savard

On 02/07/2015 22:28, wrote:
On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 8:59:18 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 10:29:21 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

That isn't my system, although I do consider the idea ethically sound
and something that can represent one component of a healthy, happy,
fair society.

Practical attempts to implement that idea in the real world have been less than
"ethically sound".

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs...
however,
has anyone really tried to implement it?

Various forms of slavery were examples of it, as was Soviet-style communism.

Only in your perverted world view.

Slavery was the ultra extreme free market economy where slave owners
could buy, sell and kill individuals classified as slaves on a whim.
Some US southern state police still have this attitude towards coloured
people.

Governments' redistribution of wealth is another example, to a large degree.

Would you rather that wealth was redistributed by the unemployable
uneducated feral underclass mugging and burgling like in South Africa?

It is far better to educate people according to their abilities and
provide healthcare appropriate to their needs with a state system on a
national scale. The whole of society benefits from having a healthy
educated workforce. I realise that you cannot see this...

A good education is not just for the rich and privileged but must be
made available to anyone who can genuinely benefit from it.

People work, they get to keep what they make, and if they want more, they can
work harder. What's so unfair about that?

There is nothing unfair about it.

Well, we look around us, and see massive inequalities in wealth and poverty -
and we're right that _something_ is wrong.

I gave an example some time ago that if the total assets of Walmart were to be evenly distributed among
its current employees, the money would cover about two years of
wages and then everyone of them would need new jobs.

So WHAT "inequality of wealth" is it to which you refer?

That the guy who owns Walmart pays himself a stratospheric salary whilst
making sure most of his employees do not get a living wage. The
employees of such companies are subsidised by taxpayers of less
malevolent companies through in work benefits (at least in the UK). Or
in the US I resume they have to work two or three jobs.

Tesco is another UK supermarket that refuses to pay its checkout staff a
living wage. And their new CEO was hauled over the coals for it at the
AGM recently. You should know this company made the largest retail loss
in UK history last year so shareholders are very angry.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...reholders.html

Profits were previously boosted by creative accounting to maximise the
executives bonuses. It all came home to roost earlier this year:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...l-history.html

Strangely there is one law for the rich and one for everyone else.

The story of Margaret Sanger may be instructive. First she was jailed and
harassed when she expressed progressive political views, and sought to help the
poor to limit their families so that they could support their children better
that they might rise in the world.

You'll have to explain why, exactly, family size was ANY of Sanger's business in the first place.

So you think it better that the poor should die of hunger and disease?

Are you against public utilities providing safe drinking water as well?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Friday, 3 July 2015 10:09:16 UTC+2, Martin Brown wrote:

So you think it better that the poor should die of hunger and disease?

Are you against public utilities providing safe drinking water as well?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown


Reich's "Inequality for all." is well worth an ultimately depressing watch.
I watched it on Netflix last night and found it confirmed everything that educated people have been saying for years.

Reich gives a graphic view of how US politics has shifted hard right.
Often leaving well-known Republican Conservatives of yesteryear languishing in mid-field.

The most important message IMO is that the upper economic classes do not buy 50-100+ times more of anything to match their huge incomes. Only the US "middle classes" buy services and goods from each other with their 30 year - inflation-stagnated income. Only the US middle classes can possibly keep their nation running because of their sheer numbers. The rich certainly wont because they can't. Their numbers are impossibly tiny [400] yet they own as much as everybody else put together!

Meanwhile the upper classes have slashed their REAL taxation to 10-11% while earning 30-50x more income [relatively] than the middle classes back in the 1970s.

The upper classes are now far richer than anyone in the entire history of the world. They have bought massive political clout out of all proportion to their [completely mythical] job creation. In fact they have openly and actively reduced and de-skilled US jobs by using "globalisation" to export jobs around the world. Meanwhile they claim efficiency gains to maximise their bonuses [in stocks] to avoid even more tax. Not only that, but they have forced massively reduced spending on health, public services and education. What was once completely free on demand now takes decades to pay back in loans.

The result is a dumbed-down US populace without the skills to compete with many other much faster-developing nations. Only a deliberate fool, lobbyist or sociopath would claim otherwise. While the elite may make the headlines the US lies at a very low comparative level statistically against many nations. Many of which the deluded and media-brainwashed US citizens would call "3rd world countries."

America has never been richer. It's just that you, the people, don't own any of it. And those who do will watch it sink into misery and anarchy and then blame those they treated as slaves. Before they hop on a private jet to somewhere else. Often with the willing cooperation of all those poor [worshipping] souls who hold them up as shining examples of American entrepreneurship. "You can fool all of the people all of the time." [But only in America!]