birdog1960

i do see problems. they need to be restructured. but to effectively do that, we must agree first that they are necessary. then begin a serious dialogue about what gets cut and what the most efficient system is and admit that rationing is necessary. you can't by an audi for the cost of a yugo. neither side is willing to do that, unfortunately.

the argument against my position for not reading the book is only valid if i have misinterpreted the messages. so tell me where i have. honestly, if teenage boys can understand it, i think i'm capable. but i can see its appeal to teenage boys. the criticism is primarily about her themes (which are quite simple) although apparently the quality of her writing is an issue to some. it's not to me. i won't be reading her works.

it's not disingeuous to point out the hypocrisy. medicare recipients get much more out on average than they put in. while it's unsustainable in the long term, that's the way it is. but railing against it while simutaneously benefitting is disingenuous.

and we don't want no stinkin socialized medicine....but don't touch my mdeicare! would be interesting to know if the gov't paid any of rands medical bills later in life. so, tell me where i'm wrong in summarizing her philosophy.

that was very clever ....and unconvincing.

"No most of us fanboys realize that we don't have to be in that number to have a great life. I don't give a **** if money flows up or down. I know the money that flows to me is 100% my responsibility. See that's the selfishness that Rand was referring to." what, exactly was meant by the word "fanboy" in your statement here. you all are shameless. i think it's a rand thing.

fortunately, everyone is not like you

you more than likely get your denier info from some hired gun "researcher"and you are a rude mechanical

visit mcdonalds 600 million times and find tennessee ave: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/math-behind-mcdonalds-monopoly-sweepstakes-205700562.html. alternatively, go 4 times and win some fries.

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-leak-susan-crockford-of-university-of-victoria-recruited-to-help-think-tank-undermine-ipcc/

never in question. it's a question of degree. ever been to a 3rd world country?a more direct answer: i never accused anybody of wanting others to suffer. i do believe it is at times a consequence of their beliefs. call it willful or even accidental indifference. if you adopt a philosophy it's a reasonable expectation that you are well informed about it.

intent is not salient. outcomes are.

really? didn't you claim upthread that you espouse her philosophy even without direct benefit to you (which on it's face seems counter to the philosophy)? yet you're not an expert. curious...

only a fool (or weak minded individual)refutes an argument with an insult. especially if they consider themselves experts on the subject.

i think i can understand the concepts of objectivism. they're not that difficult. pretty much "i'll do what makes me feel good. everyone else should do the same. conflicts in those pursuits are not to be resolved by any other power. no one should get in the way of my happiness". tell me where i'm wrong and why i need 2 read any of her books to understand it better. do you not attribute the philosophy to rand? does it not influence her opinions on other matters including capitalism?

i've seen the movies and read condensed versions of the text. it's not that profound. i wouldn't subject myself willingly to that torture. the movies were dreadful not only in production value but thematically. nevertheless, her points are rather obvious. so what about the quote. how would you state the central tenets of objectivism?

since you obviously haven't watched the clip, her opening quote: "why is it good to want others to be happy? you can make others happy when and if it means something to you selfishly". is this not an accurate distillation of objectivism? if not then offer your take on its theme

what would the natural outcome be (and has historically been) to unfettered free markets for labor? ignorance is not a defense. they are linked through the hallowed (by rand) concept of selfishness. both are the result of it. both are the natural and necessary consequences. it's really not that complicated.

of course, you'd prefer minimum wage workers live in tin shacks and rummage through garbage. sweatshops weren't so bad, right? child labor anyone? executive pay has almost nothing to do with gov't unless it was rightfully capped.

yes. because those taking at gunpoint become the selfish corporations. see 2008 financial crisis massive wealth transfer for just one example. see minimum wage jobs supported by foodstamps and medicaid (taxes) for another. see banking laws unfriendly to everyone but the banks. see the feds zero interest and massive bond buying policy over the last 6 years and who wins and loses, see ridiculously high executive earnings....just a few examples. labels like leviathon and minimalist can be deceiving. ther common denominator is greed (selfishness). just what rand praises.

perhaps you missed the "produces similar results" part. it doesn't require mental gymnastics to understand the meaning. you stated that the current situation wasn't similar to rands utopia. i countered that the expected results are similar as the would likely follow a common final pathway.

it's an "f" to you

hence the need for constraints (assuming your premise is correct).

pray tell my point was that selfishness rules, right now. so much so that following the rules is much less important than not getting caught. and the rules and punishments are quite dependent on economic status. it produces similar results to having minimal rules as a basis.

accountability comes with documentation. this most recent article (and for that matter, message board posts) can be viewed through the prism of time.