So, apparently the Supercommittee broke down yesterday. The drastic cuts are being triggered, and Obama is at least using military cuts as a negotiating tool against the Republicans.
When can we start trying these people for treason?
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
As much as I want to complain that it would give me nothing to do while the pepper spray wears off, that is kinda good advice. You don't want to get Capsaicin anywhere near your junk, unless you really like your genitals burning with the fury of a thousand Kim Jong Ils being told that they're short.
So there was this "Thanksgiving Family Forum" in Iowa on the weekend, which was chock full of Republican candidates pandering to the godbotherer crowd.
So there was this "Thanksgiving Family Forum" in Iowa on the weekend, which was chock full of Republican candidates pandering to the godbotherer crowd.
Naturally - most of their candidates with even a glimmer of hope of being selected as the presidential candidate are hard-line christian dominionists, along with some who will never win in a million years, with a million chances. **coughronpaulcough**
The operation was took place before the G8 and G20 conferences last year and targeted who's ideologies were described as "variants of anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, nihilism, socialism and/or communism."
"The important commonality is that these ideologies ... place these individuals and/or organizations at odds with the status quo and the current distribution of power in society."
Sometimes it is very easy to forget that The Government of CanadaThe Harper Government is basically the Bush administration with a Napoleon complex.
I'm still hoping that people will realize that the Republicans are full of lies and horribly awful self-interested people who don't give a damn about anyone but themselves and will happily allow poor people to die if it helps them out, and won't vote for them.
Oh wait. I forgot that Ayn Rand is a saint for these people. There goes my hope.
So, apparently the Supercommittee broke down yesterday. The drastic cuts are being triggered, and Obama is at least using military cuts as a negotiating tool against the Republicans.
When can we start trying these people for treason?
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
In what way is Obama using defense cuts, which the Republicans agreed to and signed into law, as a negotiating tool?
To review, the cuts are half to military and half to medicare and were designed as a last ditch effort to make both sides to make some concessions with the idea that the consequences would be too dire. This was a pretty stupid concept, but it was the only way to end the hostage negotiation without either the United States declaring Bankruptcy or causing massive pain to those most vulnerable in society. And recently certain people like John McCain said they would just pass new legislation to undo the military cuts. Note they don't intend to remove the medicare cuts when they talk about this.
And Obama has said he'd veto any bill designed to undo the triggers if they don't come with a compromised deficit reduction plan. Which basically means he doesn't think the GOP gets to call a mulligan. Also shows it was never about the deficit, it was always about a hostage to take to try to reduce social programs.
Who are we supposed to by trying for treason again?
Oh wait. I forgot that Ayn Rand is a saint for these people. There goes my hope.
Ayn Rand: The L. Ron Hubbard of awful fucking people
Fixed that for you.
That implies that Ayn Rand was a human being. The damage her "philosophy" has done to this country over time should be considered a war crime; my dog is more of a person than Ayn Rand. My dog loves everyone who hasn't wronged her and protects those who can't protect themselves out of the goodness of her doggy heart; Ayn Rand's blackened coal of a bitch heart could not possibly love, but only spew forth egotism and animosity like the seething bellows of some infernal machine.
I would say Ayn Rand was krill, but that does a disservice to the one of the roots of the biggest food chain on earth.
I wonder if people adversely affected by the medicare cuts could file a class-action suit against every congressperson in the Super Committee.
I realize you're probably just being sardonic, but the answer is no. Legislators have indemnity for any damages caused as a result of them attempting to pass legislation. And that's how it should be, otherwise ever single bill would be gridlocked by a "there's a 2.4 percent chance it could hurt X" mentality.
I really, REALLY want to know how someone can be a Randroid and also consider themselves a Christian. That would probably make my head explode.
I talk to these people on a regular basis. I hate them.
I really, REALLY want to know how someone can be a Randroid and also consider themselves a Christian. That would probably make my head explode.
There was actually some christian political action committee that made an attack ad against Randroid conservative politicians. Of course it wasn't "Ayn Rand is an awful fucking person and her social and economic ideals are rotten to the core" but "Ayn Rand is an atheist *gasp*".
See, I like that part of Rand's philosophy - the non-faith-based morality. And y'know, in principle, I like the idea of focusing on rational self-interest. Really, we should be exalting ourselves.
The problem is that the philosophy becomes too self-centered - people want to put themselves on a pedestal, whereas I want to put everyone on a pedestal.
This is a great paradox of most of modern evangelical politics. the blog Slactivist dedicates a lot of time to this issue, as well as all the other odd quirks.
From my reading of Slactivist I think at least one of the reasons is a sense of superiority. Compare Atlas Shrugged to Left Behind. They are both books about the righteous leaving and a mass class of evil or undeserving left to suffer for their sins. Both have a great sense of triumphalism. They are about watching the non believers suffering for failing to accept Jesus/Rational self interest. Both show a sense of "We are the proper people and are surrounded by a sea of sinners, moochers satanists etc"
I would highly recommend reading the Slactivist blog, especially his exhaustive review of Left Behind. Reading his analysis of Left Behind was quite cathartic after going through high school with evangelical friends who were always a bit worried over my soul. I might go so far as to say Fred Clark saved me from absolute atheism, though I'm still rather agnostic.
See, I like that part of Rand's philosophy - the non-faith-based morality. And y'know, in principle, I like the idea of focusing on rational self-interest. Really, we should be exalting ourselves.
The problem is that the philosophy becomes too self-centered - people want to put themselves on a pedestal, whereas I want to put everyone on a pedestal.
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Or, y'know, just know some more. From how I understand it, if you have a society of people who are acting for their self-interests, it wouldn't work out too well. Some people would eventually get an advantage over other people and would then sacrifice the "everyone who isn't me" to keep pressing that advantage.
See, I like that part of Rand's philosophy - the non-faith-based morality. And y'know, in principle, I like the idea of focusing on rational self-interest. Really, we should be exalting ourselves.
The problem is that the philosophy becomes too self-centered - people want to put themselves on a pedestal, whereas I want to put everyone on a pedestal.
Self Interest is not a sin anymore then eating food is, but all things must have moderation. the idea of a world of Galtian supermen creating a utopia through rational self interest has the same sort of logic as "An armed society is a polite society." On paper it can make sense but the devil is always in the details.
Rational self interest as the guiding force of a society reminds me of a Far Side: "Yes, yes, I know that, Sidney....everybody knows that! But look: four wrongs squared minus two wrongs to the fourth power, divided by this formula, do make a right."
Or, y'know, just know some more. From how I understand it, if you have a society of people who are acting for their self-interests, it wouldn't work out too well. Some people would eventually get an advantage over other people and would then sacrifice the "everyone who isn't me" to keep pressing that advantage.
The key is rational self-interest - a la reciprocal altruism.
There is a fallacious bit of reasoning required to support the logic of "I got mine, fuck the rest of you:" that you don't actually need other people in order to succeed.
Supporting other people is within your own rational self-interest. Smart people form networks and support them with generosity. Alpha wolves provide for their pack. No alpha wolf will hunt something down and leave its pack mates with nothing - that's grounds for a coup.
And once everyone is on a sufficiently tall pedestal, it stops mattering that someone is ahead of them.
Supporting other people is within your own rational self-interest. Smart people form networks and support them with generosity. Alpha wolves provide for their pack. No alpha wolf will hunt something down and leave its pack mates with nothing - that's grounds for a coup.
Sure, the alpha wolf won't do that, but if a pack mate gets injured, the alpha wolf might decide it's time that the pack mate got eaten, since they aren't going to be much use in the hunt anymore.
In the case of people as opposed to wolves you can do a lot better with rational self-interest, but there's plenty of situations where self-interest alone hardly suffices for morality - the best example is people in positions of power. I'm sure plenty of monarchs and tyrants could be said to have acted very much in their own rational self-interest while achieving rather poor outcomes for their people.
Keep in mind Ayn Rand uses the term Rational Self Interest and has a collection of essays made into a book titled "The Virtue of Selfishness"
She is not thinking about reciprocal altruism. She would probably consider that a bad approach. She seems more to think along the lines of a race of sociopaths whose efforts to exploit one another cancel out for total good
Keep in mind Ayn Rand uses the term Rational Self Interest and has a collection of essays made into a book titled "The Virtue of Selfishness"
She is not thinking about reciprocal altruism. She would probably consider that a bad approach. She seems more to think along the lines of a race of sociopaths whose efforts to exploit one another cancel out for total good
Actually, from what I know of Ayn Rand, this is wrong. I'm pretty sure she had some concept of individual rights, at the very least, and I don't think she was in favour of exploitation.
Guys, I understand that what Rand specifically espoused is crap. I'm talking about the idea reapplied. "Rational self-interest" does not necessarily mean "Ayn Rand's view on rational self-interest."
I don't care that Rand wasn't thinking about reciprocal altruism - she was wrong in that regard. But that doesn't mean that the idea lacks any sort of merit. Her specific implementation of the idea may be lacking.
Supporting other people is within your own rational self-interest. Smart people form networks and support them with generosity. Alpha wolves provide for their pack. No alpha wolf will hunt something down and leave its pack mates with nothing - that's grounds for a coup.
Sure, the alpha wolf won't do that, but if a pack mate gets injured, the alpha wolf might decide it's time that the pack mate got eaten, since they aren't going to be much use in the hunt anymore.
In the case of people as opposed to wolves you can do a lot better with rational self-interest, but there's plenty of situations where self-interest alone hardly suffices for morality - the best example is people in positions of power. I'm sure plenty of monarchs and tyrants could be said to have acted very much in their own rational self-interest while achieving rather poor outcomes for their people.
Well, it's hardly a discrete and perfectly repeatable principle. Marginal elements, for example, often get the shaft. If a wolf cub is born blind and crippled, it's probably not going to survive.
Likewise, there are going to be people that simply get fucked. We have to put things in place to help people as much as we can, but at some point it becomes necessary to think about diminishing returns.
There have been plenty of monarchs who made their people's lives crap. And historically, when an aristocratic class has been too abusive, the people have deposed them. And there have also been very generous monarchs who tend to their people's needs.
The idea is to get everybody into the mode of being a gracious and generous monarch. You have personal wealth of some kind, something to offer - it could be knowledge, it could be actual money, or it could be emotional support. We have lots and lots of different forms of social currency. Build up those reserves and dispense them generously. That's how you can have rational self-interest while still maintaining strong social bonds.
And remember, rational thinking often requires the input of other people - other perspectives to give you more complete information. I actually contend that being rational at all necessitates coordination with other people.
EDIT: In no way do I support monarchy as a political system. However, social monarchs are a different story.
Despite the fact that Rand is a personal idol of mine, she was human (but not only human). Read her biography and you'll get an idea. She depended on amphetamines to finish her books, she had a crazy affair with her protege and I'm sure you can pile on from there. However, she survived a spectacularly awful time in Russian history where it became abundantly clear that the only way to make collectivism work was via guns. People around her had their property taken and some were killed. Unlike the milquetoast socialists of today, these were communists who meant it. She devoted her writing career to fighting communist thought and practice. Her writing is about freedom, in the purest sense. She will always be misquoted and maligned because she dared to tell people she didn't owe them anything. In any event, read her work. It is significant.
Yes, her work is significant. Significantly what is another question, but it should be read. Personally, I think any idea should be taught, even if we teach it as being a bad idea.
There have been plenty of monarchs who made their people's lives crap. And historically, when an aristocratic class has been too abusive, the people have deposed them. And there have also been very generous monarchs who tend to their people's needs.
Yes, the ones that were too abusive clearly weren't rational enough about their self-interest - they didn't give adequate consideration to how much they could get away with. But it's clear that plenty of monarchs have funneled most of their resources to their own ends while providing only a minimal amount of bread and circuses to the populace.
And remember, rational thinking often requires the input of other people - other perspectives to give you more complete information. I actually contend that being rational at all necessitates coordination with other people.
I agree with this. Where I disagree is that rational self-interest alone cannot make you a "gracious and generous monarch", as you put it.
I definitely agree that rational self-interest is an important component of morality, though.
I agree with this. Where I disagree is that rational self-interest alone cannot make you a "gracious and generous monarch", as you put it.
Your own rational self-interest may not make you a kind and generous monarch. However, because your own rational self-interest will tell you that you need to keep the interests of others in mind, it follows that the rational self-interest of others will temper yours.
It only works if you actually pay attention to other people, and accept that you need them, as part of your own rational self-interest.
So, it's the necessary interaction with other independent actors that will force you into the "gracious monarch" state, because you will know that you have to balance your needs with the needs of others, and you will readily enter into a state of negotiation and compromise. If, however, someone doesn't play by the rules nicely and decides that everyone else can go fuck themselves, the system destabilizes.
It can probably account for an amount of destabilizing - if enough people are really engaged with each other, they can probably marginalize the assholes.
Comments
When can we start trying these people for treason?
Apparently the endgame for the Republican party is a theocracy. Not really new, but still appalling and quite illustrative how none of these clowns are in any way fit for holding office.
The operation was took place before the G8 and G20 conferences last year and targeted who's ideologies were described as "variants of anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, nihilism, socialism and/or communism." Sometimes it is very easy to forget that The Government of Canada The Harper Government is basically the Bush administration with a Napoleon complex.
*deleted double post*
Oh wait. I forgot that Ayn Rand is a saint for these people. There goes my hope.
To review, the cuts are half to military and half to medicare and were designed as a last ditch effort to make both sides to make some concessions with the idea that the consequences would be too dire. This was a pretty stupid concept, but it was the only way to end the hostage negotiation without either the United States declaring Bankruptcy or causing massive pain to those most vulnerable in society. And recently certain people like John McCain said they would just pass new legislation to undo the military cuts. Note they don't intend to remove the medicare cuts when they talk about this.
And Obama has said he'd veto any bill designed to undo the triggers if they don't come with a compromised deficit reduction plan. Which basically means he doesn't think the GOP gets to call a mulligan. Also shows it was never about the deficit, it was always about a hostage to take to try to reduce social programs.
Who are we supposed to by trying for treason again?
I would say Ayn Rand was krill, but that does a disservice to the one of the roots of the biggest food chain on earth.
The problem is that the philosophy becomes too self-centered - people want to put themselves on a pedestal, whereas I want to put everyone on a pedestal.
From my reading of Slactivist I think at least one of the reasons is a sense of superiority. Compare Atlas Shrugged to Left Behind. They are both books about the righteous leaving and a mass class of evil or undeserving left to suffer for their sins. Both have a great sense of triumphalism. They are about watching the non believers suffering for failing to accept Jesus/Rational self interest. Both show a sense of "We are the proper people and are surrounded by a sea of sinners, moochers satanists etc"
I would highly recommend reading the Slactivist blog, especially his exhaustive review of Left Behind. Reading his analysis of Left Behind was quite cathartic after going through high school with evangelical friends who were always a bit worried over my soul. I might go so far as to say Fred Clark saved me from absolute atheism, though I'm still rather agnostic.
Or, y'know, just know some more. From how I understand it, if you have a society of people who are acting for their self-interests, it wouldn't work out too well. Some people would eventually get an advantage over other people and would then sacrifice the "everyone who isn't me" to keep pressing that advantage.
Rational self interest as the guiding force of a society reminds me of a Far Side:
"Yes, yes, I know that, Sidney....everybody knows that!
But look: four wrongs squared minus two wrongs to the fourth power, divided by this formula, do make a right."
There is a fallacious bit of reasoning required to support the logic of "I got mine, fuck the rest of you:" that you don't actually need other people in order to succeed.
Supporting other people is within your own rational self-interest. Smart people form networks and support them with generosity. Alpha wolves provide for their pack. No alpha wolf will hunt something down and leave its pack mates with nothing - that's grounds for a coup.
And once everyone is on a sufficiently tall pedestal, it stops mattering that someone is ahead of them.
In the case of people as opposed to wolves you can do a lot better with rational self-interest, but there's plenty of situations where self-interest alone hardly suffices for morality - the best example is people in positions of power. I'm sure plenty of monarchs and tyrants could be said to have acted very much in their own rational self-interest while achieving rather poor outcomes for their people.
She is not thinking about reciprocal altruism. She would probably consider that a bad approach. She seems more to think along the lines of a race of sociopaths whose efforts to exploit one another cancel out for total good
I don't care that Rand wasn't thinking about reciprocal altruism - she was wrong in that regard. But that doesn't mean that the idea lacks any sort of merit. Her specific implementation of the idea may be lacking. Well, it's hardly a discrete and perfectly repeatable principle. Marginal elements, for example, often get the shaft. If a wolf cub is born blind and crippled, it's probably not going to survive.
Likewise, there are going to be people that simply get fucked. We have to put things in place to help people as much as we can, but at some point it becomes necessary to think about diminishing returns.
There have been plenty of monarchs who made their people's lives crap. And historically, when an aristocratic class has been too abusive, the people have deposed them. And there have also been very generous monarchs who tend to their people's needs.
The idea is to get everybody into the mode of being a gracious and generous monarch. You have personal wealth of some kind, something to offer - it could be knowledge, it could be actual money, or it could be emotional support. We have lots and lots of different forms of social currency. Build up those reserves and dispense them generously. That's how you can have rational self-interest while still maintaining strong social bonds.
And remember, rational thinking often requires the input of other people - other perspectives to give you more complete information. I actually contend that being rational at all necessitates coordination with other people.
EDIT: In no way do I support monarchy as a political system. However, social monarchs are a different story.
I definitely agree that rational self-interest is an important component of morality, though.
It only works if you actually pay attention to other people, and accept that you need them, as part of your own rational self-interest.
So, it's the necessary interaction with other independent actors that will force you into the "gracious monarch" state, because you will know that you have to balance your needs with the needs of others, and you will readily enter into a state of negotiation and compromise. If, however, someone doesn't play by the rules nicely and decides that everyone else can go fuck themselves, the system destabilizes.
It can probably account for an amount of destabilizing - if enough people are really engaged with each other, they can probably marginalize the assholes.