DIY Electric Car Forums banner

Atlas Shrugged Part III

57K views 516 replies 14 participants last post by  david85 
#1 ·
For those who read the 1250 ponderous pages of the original novel, you would be surprised they managed to cut the John Galt speech to about a paragraph - and that paragraph said it better than the 67-page long original speech. Overall they did a pretty good job of staying true to the vision of the novel; however, painting a full collapse will clearly be viewed as over-dramatic by the left ("see, it's not completely collapsing so she's completely wrong!!!") while in reality things will merely continue to mire down into the endless doldrums of a European-style Plutocracy.

Upon reflection, I think it was actually good that they changed the cast for every movie. You'll see a lot of familiar faces in this final installment, and surprisingly they managed to turn Rand's Russian cynicism into an uplifting ending. Of the three, this movie is (IMHO) the best and gets across her philosophy without being harsh nor critical - it simply recognizes and highlights the truth about big government.

Libs, you should go watch it even if it is just a way to get to know your enemy.... :D
 
#2 ·
The first time I read Atlas Shrugged was in 1980. We had officially moved into the new house I had totally built with my own hands and we owed no one a dime. At the time I finished reading the book I thought that was one of the greatest books I ever read. While there are a few points I still agree with after reading A.S. for the second time 12 years later I thought that is the stupidest book I ever read.
 
#4 ·
The odds are that I will not see the movie. I have only read one other Rand book called Fountain head. I can’t remember much of it so I guess it didn’t impress me much. I am not a book critic so I must be expressing a political opinion. Like I mentioned before, I was feeling good about the way I had worked my life and felt pretty smug about it so what Ayn said in her book appealed to me at the time. Twelve years later when I read it I was doing even better but I thought most of what she wrote was malarkey. I am doing real good now, and twenty two years later I still think most of it is malarkey. I am not a hardcore liberal but I am not a hardcore conservative either. They call it middle of the road. I guess that is why I am always getting hit by the truck from both directions because I have an uncanny knack of seeing both sides of issues like this. I doubt you are rich enough to be one of those 1%’ers so basically you are just another little guy to the tycoons of A.S. and the real world. The stuff she writes sounds good on paper but in real life and human nature being the way it is, the ideal that her John Galt spouts would basically enslave you and me. By the way, I agree the book took some serious effort to get through. With my limited attention span I am surprised I made it through a second reading.
 
#8 ·
The odds are that I will not see the movie. I have only read one other Rand book called Fountain head. I can’t remember much of it so I guess it didn’t impress me much. I am not a book critic so I must be expressing a political opinion. Like I mentioned before, I was feeling good about the way I had worked my life and felt pretty smug about it so what Ayn said in her book appealed to me at the time. Twelve years later when I read it I was doing even better but I thought most of what she wrote was malarkey. I am doing real good now, and twenty two years later I still think most of it is malarkey. I am not a hardcore liberal but I am not a hardcore conservative either. They call it middle of the road. I guess that is why I am always getting hit by the truck from both directions because I have an uncanny knack of seeing both sides of issues like this. I doubt you are rich enough to be one of those 1%’ers so basically you are just another little guy to the tycoons of A.S. and the real world. The stuff she writes sounds good on paper but in real life and human nature being the way it is, the ideal that her John Galt spouts would basically enslave you and me. By the way, I agree the book took some serious effort to get through. With my limited attention span I am surprised I made it through a second reading.
So, you believe that 50%+ taxation is "middle of the road?" And, somehow that mysteriously a philosophy which declares people naturally free of slavery is enslaving? Interesting.

Actually, I think the movie did a better job summing up her philosophy than her own books did. The message was simply anti-slavery; that big government will always and inevitably become tyrannical. The 1% have nothing to do with her philosophy at all. In fact, Objectivism has no position whatsoever on inheritance (the mechanism by which the 1% remain the 1%), nor does it claim that individuals retain property rights once dead.
 
#5 ·
I agree with Dragonsgate,
The philosophy appears fine for somebody who is just starting
As soon as you have acquired some knowledge of the world you see the gaping holes.

Overall a nonsense book written by somebody who had never achieved anything concrete
 
#6 ·
I've read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The latter I read all the way through, and it might best be described as self help for sociopaths. The former was so ham-fisted in the way the characters are written solely to justify her mindset (it's an insult to call it philosophy) that it was laughable, and I couldn't make it past a couple hundred pages. She writes technical people in a way which makes me sure she had never met any. Her "philosophy" is incapable of forming a social order, since the one of her supermen who uses force and fraud to take their egoism to its logical conclusion would end up being despot over all the others who are supposed to play by her rules, and hence would end up as slaves, utterly unable to self-actualize, and yet some people still take this crap seriously for some bizarre reason. Guess it helps them keep their pesky consciences at bay, having someone tell them that compassion is evil etc.

I gather someone made this ponderous tome into three movies...yawn!
 
#7 ·
I haven't seen the movie and don't plan to, but what I've read about it, and Ayn Rand and her other works, makes me wonder why some conservatives and libertarians idolize her and her philosophy almost as a religion. The premises seem to be simplistic and outdated, with anachronistic reverence and longing for the "golden days" of capitalism that thankfully began to be replaced with more reasonable economic and social paradigms around WW1. The age of the rugged individualists, who amassed great wealth and power while causing harm to the society that enables realization of their materialistic goals, is thankfully drawing to a close. :)

The premise of Rand's philosophy and gloomy predictions is based on the need for technological advances to provide for the health and welfare of the general population. But by the middle of the 20th century, with the possible exception of medical advances, most technological development has resulted in the perceived need for things that may be more harmful than helpful, and hardly necessary for health and happiness. Consider advanced weaponry, television, video games, cell phones, and muscle cars, among others. Although there is much good use for these items, it can be argued that they are often misused and contribute to many of the ills of our present society. A "strike" by industrialists of today might actually be beneficial to society by pushing people to become more self-reliant and healthier in body, mind, and spirit. :p
 
#9 ·
I just checked out the reviews from the liberal critics, and they made it look as though there must be something threatening about it, and the reviews were about as objective as Paul's. It is not at a lot of theaters, so it could probably do well with a book to go with it as well as bait for liberals to ban. I am sold. Can't wait to see it.
 
#10 ·
Well, I see that the responses here are unanimous. No one has seen the movie, nor plans to, and all express a twisted view of Rand's anti-slavery philosophy as being pro-slavery.

Seems that the Progressive marketers have been successfully spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Sounds like some people need a hug...

In reality, Rand's philosophy is no different than any other ideal - any right taken to it's ultimate extreme will cause hardship for some. Despite the liberal spin of doom if we change our direction, no one sane in any party is suggesting that we should end all safety net programs and leave the poor to individual charity or death. Only illiterate morons suggest such a thing.

However, when you accept the Liberal claims that they are anti-slavery, the logical conclusion is that their ideology is the least likely path to assure that goal. Instead, as the movie shows in at least a hundred subtle ways, the State is encroaching aggressively and arrogantly into every aspect of our daily lives. The movie points out the path to a better way that deals with people compassionately while providing the best environment for opportunity and realization of individual growth, liberty, and prosperity.
 
#254 ·
Well, I see that the responses here are unanimous. No one has seen the movie, nor plans to, and all express a twisted view of Rand's anti-slavery philosophy as being pro-slavery.

The movie points out the path to a better way that deals with people compassionately while providing the best environment for opportunity and realization of individual growth, liberty, and prosperity.
I have watched both of the direct to DVD movies at home, I didn't mind the first, the second I found somewhat irritating but was OK.

I will likely watch the third when it comes out on DVD, if it ends up at the library (which inevitably happens after a couple years)

This third installment is a year late.

In terms of its "message" I don't really view it as either positive or negative. To me its fiction. its possible the government could go full in much as germany or russia did in years past but I doubt our transistion would be anything like the movie and the likelyhood of any of the events is small.

I also doubt any reactions would be like in the movie and I also don't think real life would ever match anything presented in the movie even if an active effort was made for us to do so.

The series is a good thought experiment but sadly reminds me of a darker "take this job" and shove it movie with a handfull of role modifications :)

What I view as slavery is not direct taxation but our land-mortgage system and property tax both of which slice across society wasting millions of dollars without any socially acceptable mechanism to avoid.

Most of the truly wealthy (not upper middle class) pay significantly less tax than the lower middle class, I myself seem to pay 40% to the man in one way or another and I am by no means wealthy, just single.

I don't really dissagree with the 40% I send back, I am more irritated by the indirect taxation and the taxation that has nothing to do with income. I view insurance as taxation for example but likewise if I am required to pay that tax I rather see a Japanese or German system for health care as opposed to the set of special interests that are in there now. Sadly the system we have today is still better than the one prior, which just goes to show how piss poor the system was to begin with, afterall Nixons wasn't much of a saintly health care expert and the system he launched was terrible.

Ah well and this is coming from a true blue liberal.
 
#11 ·
I am going to have to find the book and skim it to refresh my memory because the main thing that sticks in my mind was the fact that government holds back the business man from doing as he likes inhibiting his ability to prosper. This is true in some aspects BUT if there was no regulation at all we would revert back to the days of the Robber Barons. That to me that is what hardcore republicans want and the ultra liberals wants to baton down the hatch on our freedoms for our own good. A democrat is someone that stops to help you fix a flat tire on your car in spite of the fact you was doing ok with out him and he winds up burning it to the ground. I built a Geodesic dome house in Southern California. It was a nightmare. The required permits and the rules and regs were enough to drive one mad and then adding the fact that it was an unconventional structure didn’t make things easier. That is the probably the reason why at that time I related to what Rand wrote in her book. After nine years I sold out and moved to Arkansas. When I went to look about getting permits I was told seeing as how I was out side any city limits I didn’t need any permits. So I built another dome house the way I saw fit with out anybody but the taxman snooping around. The taxman didn’t say anything. He just put down another dollar sign every time I nailed two boards together. I built a sturdy and to my way of thinking beautiful house. I didn’t need any regulations telling me what to do and how to do it so chalk one up for the conservative side. ON the other hand… in the twenty five plus years I have lived here I have seen some pretty sorry examples of non regulated house construction. A couple we knew some years ago bought a house 40 miles south of us and invited us down to see it. I was surprised a bank even gave a lone on it. It certainly wouldn’t have pasted muster in SoCal. It looked like a shack some one had added extra rooms onto as the need arouse. The ceilings were barely seven and a half feet high and in one room I noticed the curve in the sheetrock on one wall. I will swear that it was nailed on to a forty eight inch center frame. That truly is an example for the need of some kind of building code or regulation. That is why I am a middle of the road and think there should be maybe not happy but a fair medium in most things. I still doubt I will ever see the movie. I am a Cartoons kind of guy
 
#15 ·
I am going to have to find the book and skim it to refresh my memory because the main thing that sticks in my mind was the fact that government holds back the business man from doing as he likes inhibiting his ability to prosper. This is true in some aspects BUT if there was no regulation at all we would revert back to the days of the Robber Barons. That to me that is what hardcore republicans want and the ultra liberals wants to baton down the hatch on our freedoms for our own good. A democrat is someone that stops to help you fix a flat tire on your car in spite of the fact you was doing ok with out him and he winds up burning it to the ground. I built a Geodesic dome house in Southern California. It was a nightmare. The required permits and the rules and regs were enough to drive one mad and then adding the fact that it was an unconventional structure didn’t make things easier. That is the probably the reason why at that time I related to what Rand wrote in her book. After nine years I sold out and moved to Arkansas. When I went to look about getting permits I was told seeing as how I was out side any city limits I didn’t need any permits. So I built another dome house the way I saw fit with out anybody but the taxman snooping around. The taxman didn’t say anything. He just put down another dollar sign every time I nailed two boards together. I built a sturdy and to my way of thinking beautiful house. I didn’t need any regulations telling me what to do and how to do it so chalk one up for the conservative side. ON the other hand… in the twenty five plus years I have lived here I have seen some pretty sorry examples of non regulated house construction. A couple we knew some years ago bought a house 40 miles south of us and invited us down to see it. I was surprised a bank even gave a lone on it. It certainly wouldn’t have pasted muster in SoCal. It looked like a shack some one had added extra rooms onto as the need arouse. The ceilings were barely seven and a half feet high and in one room I noticed the curve in the sheetrock on one wall. I will swear that it was nailed on to a forty eight inch center frame. That truly is an example for the need of some kind of building code or regulation. That is why I am a middle of the road and think there should be maybe not happy but a fair medium in most things. I still doubt I will ever see the movie. I am a Cartoons kind of guy
Excellent post. I think, however, it portrays Republicans a bit like the Cartoons you enjoy. I tried having this dialogue about 2 years ago with some of the far lefties on this site, and it did not go far - like your characterization, they seem to steadfastly believe that all Republicans wanted zero regulations. I don't know a single Republican who feels that way, and given the volume of Republican-sponsored regulations over the past few decades there is little evidence to suggest there is any real truth to that idea.

But leaving aside the political parties, there are some general guidelines along which one can differentiate between useful regulations and overbearing government control. For a practical example, our courts have allowed private property to be tied up for years before developers can actually build because some environmental group or another files an endless stream of nuisance suits. There should be no such allowance - there should be standards for development, and if there is a question a solution should be put forth by our regulatory bodies in weeks, not years - and then tell the whiners on both sides to shut up and live with it.

As for Ayn Rand, the sort of thing her philosophy denounces have to do with compelling individuals or organizations to sacrifice their best interests for others. Examples range from union-run school systems which compel the school district to keep a convicted pedophile on payrole, to the outrageous Dodd-Frank bill and other pieces of legislation which damage our economy and create more rather than less division between the rich and poor.

The litmus test for which are "good" vs "bad" regulations are fairly simple and obvious - just look at the definition of Common Law. Will someone suffer actual harm ("harm" does not include "will not be able to afford the same luxuries as the rich", a myth perpetrated by the Progressives) without this regulation? Could this regulation be implemented in a less intrusive and burdensome way? Without this regulation will these businesses be free to engage in Fraud or Theft? If none of those questions are "Yes" then it might be a reasonable regulation - otherwise, it is simply government meddling.

There are dozens of agencies in our Federal Government - nearly half, in fact - which do not provide any positive value to our citizens. When we allow these sorts of agencies to exist, then we have allowed our government to exert it's control far beyond the boundaries clearly set forth in our Constitution.
 
#12 ·
Hi Dragon
You have it exactly right - regulations are a total pain in the arse
BUT - no regulations would be worse!
It is actually very difficult to write good regulations (or procedures)
One of the key elements (in procedures - where I have experience) is to start with "WHY" - why this regulation/procedure is there - what it is trying to achieve

If you know "why" something is there it is easier to comply and you easier to inspect to
 
#13 ·
In 1980 Los Angeles was considering issuing side arms to building inspectors because of the threats they were receiving on building sites. In typical government fashion the powers that be didn't ask why are people getting upset with the inspectors and what can we do to alleviate the problem it was how to enforce the existing rules that were so upsetting. As far as I know fire arms were never issued.
 
#14 ·
The trouble with "Inspecting"
Is that it is too late -
And inspection only catches a part of the faults

The problems occur earlier - in this country I would mostly blame architects who design "eye candy"
And make things unnecessarily difficult to build

In industry we have do a ton of work upfront to make sure that faults cannot move on to the next stage - or else the Japanese eat our lunch

That is much much more difficult to do when you are only making houses one at a time
 
#16 ·
Not quite, Phantom: Ayn Rand actually didn't believe in public schools, period. Not just "union run" ones, but all public schools. Why should people who don't have children, play for the education of other people's children? That's oppression! And no, I'm not making that up- I saw video of a TV interview with her, and that's exactly what she said. I guess she figured that the people in the 1600s who began to see the value-indeed the need- for an educated populace to participate in a democracy, had just gone soft in the head.

She believed that the only legitimate roles for government were the police (to enforce property rights and basic criminal law), and the army (to enforce property rights on a national level). How she would have dealt with problems of the commons is unknown to me, but I would guess it would involve selling rights to breathing air and drinking water...

Her philosophy is a twisted version of Neitzche's, which was already pretty twisted. She wasn't anti-slavery- she was against anyone inhibiting her "ubermensch" from their self-actualization in any way. She didn't give a sh*t about anyone who wasn't an ubermensch- they could starve in the gutter and she would be grateful to be rid of them- especially any of them who were born with any kind of disability. It's no surprise that as a mark of suffering for her ubermensch architect sociopath protagonist in The Fountainhead that she has his "Temple" converted into a home for "subnormal children".

Anyone making this psycho out to be any kind of champion of liberty is applying a very liberal coat of whitewash to her, or hasn't actually read and understood her writing.
 
#17 ·
Not quite, Phantom: Ayn Rand actually didn't believe in public schools, period. Not just "union run" ones, but all public schools. Why should people who don't have children, play for the education of other people's children? That's oppression! And no, I'm not making that up- I saw video of a TV interview with her, and that's exactly what she said. I guess she figured that the people in the 1600s who began to see the value-indeed the need- for an educated populace to participate in a democracy, had just gone soft in the head.
Molton, you are absolutely correct that Rand was absolutist in her views. That, however, does not invalidate the principles she espoused - it only points out that such principles in practice butt up against others.

Our Founders understood that Principles, like Rights, can run up against each other. Rand's concern - and it was based on real-life experience and is being played out again in today's Progressive indoctrinating public schools, is that giving the power of education into the hands of government invariably invites political indoctrination. Our inner city schools today are a travesty, acting as little more than babysitters "teaching" children whose parents are dependent upon the government for their living to propagate that lifestyle into the next generation.

Here in Georgia our inner city schools have more dollars per capita than almost anywhere else in the nation - and nearly the worst academic performance among those students who graduate while also having the dubious distinction of nearly the highest dropout rate nation-wide. These are not schools, they are toxic dumping grounds standing as an excuse to pull billions in taxpayer dollars to be distributed in a network of political nepotism, fraud, and abuse.

I can make a compelling argument that good schools are a vital part of our national defense. But if you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, if you allow taxpayer money to be spent on an education then people should be free to choose who educates their children - including the parents themselves. The D party despises this idea, because it takes money away from their strong political arm of the Teachers Unions and puts it generally into the hands of moderate Charter schools or stereotypically Right wing home schooling parents.

She believed that the only legitimate roles for government were the police (to enforce property rights and basic criminal law), and the army (to enforce property rights on a national level). How she would have dealt with problems of the commons is unknown to me, but I would guess it would involve selling rights to breathing air and drinking water...
Yep. She was an escapee from Stalinist Russia, and her absolutism in that regard was a visceral reaction to the most extreme forms of government abuse. Again - if you take her principles as an ideal and mash them up against other ideals put forth in the Constitution, you can still provide for the common good - but those things should be done as inexpensively and unobtrusively as possible. Anything else and we end up with what we have today - a bloated bureaucracy dedicated to only two things - self-perpetuation and ever increasing power over those it was sworn to serve.

Her philosophy is a twisted version of Neitzche's, which was already pretty twisted. She wasn't anti-slavery- she was against anyone inhibiting her "ubermensch" from their self-actualization in any way.
If you believe that, please explain the twisted logic by which you believe her principles result in slavery. I don't see it, never have. IMHO those who equate her principles with slavery either don't get it or are exercising Orwellian double-think.

She didn't give a sh*t about anyone who wasn't an ubermensch- they could starve in the gutter and she would be grateful to be rid of them- especially any of them who were born with any kind of disability. It's no surprise that as a mark of suffering for her ubermensch architect sociopath protagonist in The Fountainhead that she has his "Temple" converted into a home for "subnormal children".
Somebody needs a hug. Her principles were for everyone. Freedom, however, also implies freedom to fail. Our society sees a balancing need for a safety net. I don't see that as contradictory - unless, as we have done, we do not strictly place limits upon our charity to the detriment of the whole. I'll bet you haven't done this, but I have - I have run the calculations on what it would take to feed; clothe; house; and provide basic medical care for 1/2 of our country's population (an egregious amount to be on welfare, but a level we are rapidly approaching). Guess what? We can do it for less than half what we are spending today, without the massive infringement on everyone's Rights being currently practiced. Would they live the same lifestyle under those conditions? Hell no - but someone who is not working and has therefore proven themselves unable to make good economic decisions has no right being allocated over half of what I produce to do with whatever they want.

Anyone making this psycho out to be any kind of champion of liberty is applying a very liberal coat of whitewash to her, or hasn't actually read and understood her writing.
I not only have read and understood her writings, I also met her in person at her last public speaking appearance. She was bitter that our country was headed down the same toilet that hers went down - and understandably so. Many people of my age, especially those who have served our country in time of war, are likewise angry that the Constitution we swore to uphold and defend has been cast aside by irresponsible and irrational children in adult bodies. The far left is every bit as absolutist as Rand, but far worse - they promote the use of compulsion in pursuit of their ideal, while Rand's ideal is the minimization of government compulsion. There are injustices in either scenario; however in the more-towards-anarchy side there is still the ability to appeal to law enforcement, but when Government is the source of injustice there is no Recourse nor Remedy.

It's kind of like that line in "The Witch, The Lion, and the Wardrobe" where the evil witch points out to the younger brother that he "sold out his family for a sweetie." It is sad, and pathetic that we as a country have been so quick to sacrifice the vast wealth that was our birthright in the name of an unobtainable ponzi scheme.
 
#18 ·
I have seen all three of the Atlas Shrugged movies and I consider myself to be reasonably libertarian. That doesn't mean I totally agree either with Rand or libertarians in general. I feel that too many libertarians go too far. There is some need for government and many libertarians tend too far toward an anarchist persuasion.

Back to the movies: the first one wasn't that great. The second one was better. The third one was the best of the movies. Was it the best thing I've ever seen? No. But, it was serviceable as an introduction to objectivism. I appreciated that they were able to condense the stupidly long John Galt speech into something manageable. That's probably the best thing about the movie. I also appreciate that they drilled the central point of the book into people's heads multiple times “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” That's really the central philosophy of the book. That is, in a nutshell, what Rand seems to want everyone to do - live for themselves without taking anything away from anyone else.

The problem with this philosophy isn't that it's a bad idea. If everyone lived by that credo the world would be fine. The problem is that so few people *will* do it. And, the people who do not will undoubtedly try to enslave those who do. This is exactly what happens in the book. There isn't a really great way to prevent this. Objectivism, like every other philosophy, suffers from imperfect practice. Were communism practiced properly it'd be great. Instead we got China and the USSR. In theory capitalism should work too. But, unfortunately, people will try to subvert it and then we get robber barons. Thus any functional government has to instead count on malicious intent and try its best to prevent it. This is not how the US government has been run. Both sides of the political spectrum in this country have actively attempted to gain themselves power at the expense of the people. Being rather libertarian leaning I have opinions about how to fix this. Some of them would make Ayn Rand proud and some of them would probably make her spin in her grave.

That's the reality of politics. The only person who 100% agrees with me is me.
 
#21 ·
I have seen all three of the Atlas Shrugged movies and I consider myself to be reasonably libertarian. That doesn't mean I totally agree either with Rand or libertarians in general. I feel that too many libertarians go too far. There is some need for government and many libertarians tend too far toward an anarchist persuasion.

Back to the movies: the first one wasn't that great. The second one was better. The third one was the best of the movies. Was it the best thing I've ever seen? No. But, it was serviceable as an introduction to objectivism. I appreciated that they were able to condense the stupidly long John Galt speech into something manageable. That's probably the best thing about the movie. I also appreciate that they drilled the central point of the book into people's heads multiple times “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” That's really the central philosophy of the book. That is, in a nutshell, what Rand seems to want everyone to do - live for themselves without taking anything away from anyone else.

The problem with this philosophy isn't that it's a bad idea. If everyone lived by that credo the world would be fine. The problem is that so few people *will* do it. And, the people who do not will undoubtedly try to enslave those who do. This is exactly what happens in the book. There isn't a really great way to prevent this. Objectivism, like every other philosophy, suffers from imperfect practice. Were communism practiced properly it'd be great. Instead we got China and the USSR. In theory capitalism should work too. But, unfortunately, people will try to subvert it and then we get robber barons. Thus any functional government has to instead count on malicious intent and try its best to prevent it. This is not how the US government has been run. Both sides of the political spectrum in this country have actively attempted to gain themselves power at the expense of the people. Being rather libertarian leaning I have opinions about how to fix this. Some of them would make Ayn Rand proud and some of them would probably make her spin in her grave.

That's the reality of politics. The only person who 100% agrees with me is me.
lol you are wrong - I agree with you 100%... :D

Excellent synopsis.
 
#19 ·
If you truly embrace libertarianism, the government would not try to enforce morality and the right of the individual to do whatever does not harm others. Thus, there would be no more "war on drugs", except for reasonable laws to protect the public such as DUI, public intoxication, and distribution to minors. By eliminating this failed effort, the huge financial incentives for drug activity that has led to the inner city drug/violence culture would be eliminated, the drug cartels would be defunded, and probably more than half of the present level of criminal activity and incarceration would eliminated. I support Ron Paul's attitude on this, and a recent meeting of governors (including Chris Christie) and Nancy Pelosi aimed at doing just that:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/n...ie__Pelosi_help_launch_drug_rehab_center.html

This would also stabilize the social conditions in the ghettos and make it more of a viable option to get a job rather than make quick money selling drugs.

Government also really has no business regulating peoples' sex practices, including prostitution, homosexuality, and gay marriage, but many of today's far-right Republicans inject their questionable religious and moral beliefs into laws that are intrusive and unnecessary and direct assaults on personal rights and freedom.

Libertarians and the far right also seem to deny the negative effects of pollution and devastation of wilderness areas as they want to support big business making more profits by rapidly depleting natural resources which rightfully belong to ALL of us and not corporations who have used their unfair influences to persuade lawmakers to subsidize their rape of the environment. :eek:

I, too, long for the days when Republicans such as Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln represented fairness and true conservative principles. Even DDE and Ronald Reagan were much more centrist and practical than the radical extremists we now see as the standard bearers.
http://www.timmyfalcon.com/uncatego...ral-republicans-who-would-be-democrats-today/

There are SOME far-left Democrats and liberals, but by far the majority are centrists and want to move forward in a reasonably conservative manner, and not try to tear down everything and attempt to restore some untenable idealistic dream of their version of the "good old days". :rolleyes:
 
#22 · (Edited)
If you truly embrace libertarianism, the government would not try to enforce morality and the right of the individual to do whatever does not harm others. Thus, there would be no more "war on drugs", except for reasonable laws to protect the public such as DUI, public intoxication, and distribution to minors. By eliminating this failed effort, the huge financial incentives for drug activity that has led to the inner city drug/violence culture would be eliminated, the drug cartels would be defunded, and probably more than half of the present level of criminal activity and incarceration would eliminated. I support Ron Paul's attitude on this, and a recent meeting of governors (including Chris Christie) and Nancy Pelosi aimed at doing just that:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/n...ie__Pelosi_help_launch_drug_rehab_center.html

This would also stabilize the social conditions in the ghettos and make it more of a viable option to get a job rather than make quick money selling drugs.

Government also really has no business regulating peoples' sex practices, including prostitution, homosexuality, and gay marriage, but many of today's far-right Republicans inject their questionable religious and moral beliefs into laws that are intrusive and unnecessary and direct assaults on personal rights and freedom.

Libertarians and the far right also seem to deny the negative effects of pollution and devastation of wilderness areas as they want to support big business making more profits by rapidly depleting natural resources which rightfully belong to ALL of us and not corporations who have used their unfair influences to persuade lawmakers to subsidize their rape of the environment. :eek:

I, too, long for the days when Republicans such as Teddy Roosevelt and Abe Lincoln represented fairness and true conservative principles. Even DDE and Ronald Reagan were much more centrist and practical than the radical extremists we now see as the standard bearers.
http://www.timmyfalcon.com/uncatego...ral-republicans-who-would-be-democrats-today/

There are SOME far-left Democrats and liberals, but by far the majority are centrists and want to move forward in a reasonably conservative manner, and not try to tear down everything and attempt to restore some untenable idealistic dream of their version of the "good old days". :rolleyes:
Since I was the one who started this thread I clicked "view post" on this to see what our resident fringer has to say. As I suspected, Paul brings a unique blend of dead-on assessment coupled to completely delusional perception of reality to the discussion.

As a Libertarian / Constitutionalist, I'd agree that the Federal government has no business whatsoever in the determination of what substances or body parts people may consensually allow into their bodies, nor in what they do with unborn fetuses (the Constitution classifies minors as property, leaving such judgements entirely up to the mother and/or the States). Those are personal choices and, unless you declare a person legally mentally incompetent, government in general has no business dictating and certainly not at the Federal level. True poisons are the province of the States to regulate. As for Republicans and pollution, their opposition to the EPA has nothing to do with toxins - which the States do a pretty good job of regulating on their own - but with the established fact that the EPA is acting beyond their authority in pursuit of Progressive political aims unrelated to the environment.

Where Paul is once again delusional is in his conflation of Republicans with fringe fundamentalists, who make up a vanishingly small (if vocal) minority of the Republican Party; and in his distorted perception that most elected Democrats are "centrist." With our National Debt now just under $18 trillion (rapidly approaching double what it was under Bush) and the D party holding a near-unanimous position that we should spend even more, we can state with mathematical certainty that the vast majority of elected Dems are so far removed from reality that the idea of Centrist cannot be used in the same sentence with their names by any sane person.

That being said, this post was exactly what I expected from him - no correlation to the subject of the thread, and far-fetched generalizations in which he is a centrist and everyone else an extremist. Go ahead and have the last word Paul, I've seen enough to know I made the right choice... ;)
 
#23 ·
True poisons are the province of the States to regulate. As for Republicans and pollution, their opposition to the EPA has nothing to do with toxins - which the States do a pretty good job of regulating on their own - but with the established fact that the EPA is acting beyond their authority in pursuit of Progressive political aims unrelated to the environment.

Before I went to live in the USA I admired the US advances in controlling emissions,
For automotive emissions we (UK) seemed to trail the US - which is not necessarily a bad thing - we got to avoid some mistakes -

Then I was living in a State (Indiana) with a tiny population density,
In a country with a total population density a fraction of the UK

So the air was good???
No - worse, much worse than the UK,

It wasn't Indiana's fault - it was coming all the way from the West coast
So "State" control simply doesn't work

Then inside the rules - the rules had become useless
A power plant could keep on polluting (Grandfathered)

Worse you could "maintain" the "old" plant and make it double the size and it was still the "old" plant entitled to pollute
There may be things wrong with the EPA but too heavy a hand is not one of them

The USA should be leading the race to a lovely clean environment
You have all of the advantages!

Instead Europe with the highest population density on the planet is leading that race
 
#25 · (Edited)
Your viewpoint on the EPA is about 30 years outdated. A simple standards board would suffice, performing the role that the Commerce Clause actually empowers. The word "regulate" was meant to make rules uniform across the States. Such a panel would take input from all the States, and set standards. That is not what they do, which is proactive political activism.

But if you think the EPA is not acting outside their charter, please explain why they now have their own SWAT teams? They have no empowerment to be a Police arm; in such circumstance as people are breaking the law their correct role is to contact the correct law enforcement agency. Instead they are now seizing property; conducting midnight raids of intimidation which are potentially deadly; and issuing edicts sidestepping Congress and the President himself.

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a natural element in our atmosphere vital to life. Regulating CO2 in the United States will have virtually zero global impact.

No, this agency has gone fully rogue and needs to be disbanded.
 
#24 ·
I think even China is more committed to reducing air pollution and conserving natural resources than the US would be if the Capitalists, Republicans and Libertarians had their way. I am a proud member of the Sierra Club, but I am also a pragmatist and I don't agree with ALL of their environmental campaigns. Much of the liberal opposition is "over the top" because of similar extremism on the part of the "conservative" factions. There is no way to win a tug-o-war when both sides are balanced on a knife-edge with unsurvivable precipices on both sides. This is the principle of checks and balances, cooperation, concessions, and an attempt at consensus. It is also what the majority of US citizens want, and what we as a country need to survive and prosper in a changing world.

We are all connected by the global economy, environment, communications, and conditions for future survival. There are many people in powerful positions who are essentially sociopaths and have no interest in such lofty aspirations for civilization and the bulk of humanity. As Phantom and evmetro have shown, their interests are self-centered and materialistic, and their corporate and conservative heroes are even more so. The left wing, if allowed free reign, may very well cause some financial difficulties such as increasing debt, but the equally or more radical elements that comprise a large portion of the right wing, may very well endanger our very survival as a species and at the very least will cause great harm to the masses.

BTW, the right-wing fears of the huge numbers of welfare recipients and their racist assumptions may be unfounded or greatly exaggerated, but it depends on where you choose to obtain your "facts".
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_people_in_US_are_on_welfare
http://www.timmyfalcon.com/politics...-on-welfare-and-largest-percentage-are-white/
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ter...rcentage-americans-welfare-hits-recorded-high (the "right" news)
 
#26 ·
More right wing lies that are swallowed whole by gullible righties like Phantom and regurgitated in an attempt to further their agenda. The only sources I could find that reference this were right-wing propaganda sites, like this:

http://nextnewsnetwork.com/news/epa-swat-team-raids-mine/

Their link to an article in the Alaska Dispatch comes up empty, and here are the search results for "EPA raid".

http://www.adn.com/article/20140910/flint-hills-hit-80000-penalty-dumpster-fires
http://www.adn.com/article/20140909/house-tries-rein-epa-dismay-conservationists
http://www.adn.com/article/20140831/mine-waste-storage-and-salmon-runs-what-could-go-wrong

Sure pokes a(nother) big hole in Phantom's credibility, along with his silly assertions about the wonders of CO2 and how it will "green the earth". Just like my crazy friend who claims there are almost unlimited supplies of oil everywhere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin). He also believes in perpetual motion of the unbalanced wheel, and he "knows" someone who has several cars that run on water but he can't reveal the "secret" until he gets massive funding to assure it won't be "stolen". When I first met him he was very practical-minded but I think his experiences living in Baltimore City, along with the 2008 crash that hurt his business, caused him to become hooked on right-wing talk radio and he thinks it is the truth. Perhaps there is a brain disease that is infecting conservatives?
 
#27 ·
More right wing lies that are swallowed whole by gullible righties like Phantom and regurgitated in an attempt to further their agenda. The only sources I could find that reference this were right-wing propaganda sites, like this:

http://nextnewsnetwork.com/news/epa-swat-team-raids-mine/

Their link to an article in the Alaska Dispatch comes up empty, and here are the search results for "EPA raid".
So you manage to find one broken link (not one I provided), and upon that evidence suggest that I am not truthful? Paul, the next time you tell the truth will probably be the first.
Why does the EPA Need a Swat Team?
EPA Facing Fire for Armed Raid
EPA uses SWAT Team to seize couple's Land Rover
Google Results for "EPA SWAT Team" - hundreds of more links.

Paul, I can't poke holes in your credibility because you don't have any. The rest of your links are actually additional evidence of EPA over-reach; the tragedy is that you are utterly oblivious to it.

Back on ignore, feel free to have a final word.
 
#29 ·
Just thinking about the EPA and pollution

Have you guys been following the latest on lead in petrol (gasoline)?
It seems likely that the lead in petrol was responsible for the increase in crime after WW2 and that the removal of lead is why crime has now dropped so much


This shows that the poor old buggers damaged by lead as kids are still offending,
But the youngsters are not

Remember when they were trying to remove the lead and the screams from the corporations involved
 
#36 ·
That's a rather fantastical conclusion Duncan. Unfortunately, all you've shown is a correlation, not causation. Here is another one:


  1. Ice cream sales vary in direct proportion to temperature
  2. Swimming deaths vary in direct proportion to Ice Cream sales
  3. Ice cream causes swimming deaths
 
#30 ·
Paul
EPA uses SWAT Team to seize couple's Land Rover
..And why would anyone want to buy an old Land Rover and invest $60,000 in it? Seems like somebody has too much "mad money" and it would have been better to have invested that in converting it to electric or purchasing a safer, more efficient, and cleaner ride.
This is disgusting. I won't get into the topic of having class since you will just invert it, but your speculation as to why somebody would want to spend their money on something that they value is simply gross. If you had authority over something like this, I really doubt that freedom would prevail. I enjoy driving a clean ride that is more efficient than any EV or hybrid in production, but I build these because I have the freedom to do this. If somebody wants to put $60k into an old Landrover, that is their business.
 
#31 ·
I read that the biggest influence on crime was legalized abortion and free and easy contraception. Lead was probably a contributor, as was the gradual aging of the population.

Phantom, my beef isn't with conservatives, or even with libertarians, but rather with those of them who revere Ayn Rand and her poor excuse for a philosophy without understanding it and its full implications. Like Jesus I have no time for hypocrites, so I revile religious conservatives who are libertarians on all but social issues.

Capitalism and a market economy are both awesome- but only if paired with a system of government like democracy, plus the rule of law and a system of public regulation and taxation. Without regulation, problems of the commons are rife. Without the rule of law there can be neither freedom nor any other rights including property rights. Without democracy, tyranny or oligarchy is inevitable. And without taxation, not only is government impossible, but economic tyrrany and oligarchy are inevitable and the notion of a free market is a joke. You need the whole package. Individual freedom alone is incapable of generating a social order. We can argue about how far to set the levers of regulation and taxation, and we also probably agree that we already live in a world ruled by an oligarchy. We probably disagree greatly about who the tyrants are and what the tools of their tyrrany are. That's the beauty of a) democracy and b) nations. We each have our say, and within limits we can also choose to live where we feel the balance best suits us. I'm much happier in Canada than I'd be in the US and I'm sure the reverse is absolutely true for you too.
 
#37 ·
I read that the biggest influence on crime was legalized abortion and free and easy contraception. Lead was probably a contributor, as was the gradual aging of the population.
Lead may have played a role, but it was hardly the primary driving force. Too, lead in gasoline specifically was only a tiny fraction of the lead most folks were exposed to. Far more was through contact with paint. The Romans had problems with this too, using lead in their glazes for pottery and dishes. It affected the wealthy more than the poor because the poor could not afford the fancy dishes.

Phantom, my beef isn't with conservatives, or even with libertarians, but rather with those of them who revere Ayn Rand and her poor excuse for a philosophy without understanding it and its full implications. Like Jesus I have no time for hypocrites, so I revile religious conservatives who are libertarians on all but social issues.
Exactly the same thing can be said of Progressivism. There are zealots of every stripe. There must be balance for there to be prosperity and freedom. We are not in balance - over half of our productive citizens are economic slaves, and the future of their children is being stolen before they are born thus assuring only a bleak future for them.

Capitalism and a market economy are both awesome- but only if paired with a system of government like democracy, plus the rule of law and a system of public regulation and taxation.
True Democracy is a graver threat to freedom and prosperity than many other forms of tyranny - our Founders cautioned against it, but we did not heed them and this ($18 trillion in debt and on the way to insolvency) is the result. Folks bandy the word "regulation" around like all laws and rules are equal - a patently false assumption. When you start from the principle that any regulation must fall in favor of freedom unless there are critically overriding dangers from not having that regulation, then the system stays in balance. Once you embrace the idea that regulations are just fine so long as some un-named panel of people thinks they are a good idea, you are down the road to totalitarianism.

There used to be a federal law which said, simply, that if a typical 6th grader could not reasonably be expected to be aware of and understand the laws of our nation, then such laws as could not be reasonably expected for them to understand and be aware of were null and void. That was a good test - today, our legal maze is un-navigable by the greatest minds.

Without regulation, problems of the commons are rife. Without the rule of law there can be neither freedom nor any other rights including property rights. Without democracy, tyranny or oligarchy is inevitable. And without taxation, not only is government impossible, but economic tyrrany and oligarchy are inevitable and the notion of a free market is a joke. You need the whole package.
Hammurabi accomplished all that with only 282 "laws." We have lost our way.

Individual freedom alone is incapable of generating a social order.
Correct. And as one great thinker observed, how can you be free if you have no knowledge, for lacking knowledge you have no idea what your choices are. That alone argues for some level of guaranteed education. However, Freedom only works in conjunction with Responsibility. Our laws today make criminals of nearly everyone, and our elected officials are anything but responsible. The only way to make them accountable is to starve their diet of free money. To this end we must repeal the 16th; nationalize the Fed and prosecute all participants in that fraud for Treason; and compel the Congress to balance the budget using generally accepted accounting principles rather than the fraudulent accounting they use today.

We can argue about how far to set the levers of regulation and taxation, and we also probably agree that we already live in a world ruled by an oligarchy. We probably disagree greatly about who the tyrants are and what the tools of their tyrrany are. That's the beauty of a) democracy and b) nations. We each have our say, and within limits we can also choose to live where we feel the balance best suits us. I'm much happier in Canada than I'd be in the US and I'm sure the reverse is absolutely true for you too.
Actually, Canada is fast becoming a shining beacon of freedom and reason in the world as they have turned away from irresponsibility (at least in their overall fiscal policy). If it were warmer there, I'd move there.
 
#34 ·
EPA and landrovers

So some people had vehicles that did not meet the standards required - and those people then refused to answer official inquiries

I am not surprised the vehicles were seized - sounds like a sensible action

SWAT teams
These would not have been necessary here
But I remember a rancher who owed over a million dollars in grazing fees (on public land) having a whole armed gang waiting for the police
Maybe a SWAT team wasn't such a silly answer
 
#38 ·
EPA and landrovers

So some people had vehicles that did not meet the standards required - and those people then refused to answer official inquiries

I am not surprised the vehicles were seized - sounds like a sensible action
There are generally conversions available to meet emissions standards. There is no indication that these people were offered the opportunity to make their vehicles compliant - just a snatch-and-grab using terrorist tactics.

SWAT teams
These would not have been necessary here
But I remember a rancher who owed over a million dollars in grazing fees (on public land) having a whole armed gang waiting for the police
Maybe a SWAT team wasn't such a silly answer
If there is a dangerous offender, the correct answer is to turn the complaint over to proper law enforcement agencies - NOT to create your own SWAT teams. That is the way of a Gestapo-State.
 
#40 ·
This whole thing screams of a car theft ring stealing and reselling vehicles. Feds have no clue if the place where they are going to repossess the vehicle are the same people that stole them in the first place. That is why the swat is sent. Being that there are more than likely more than one vin it is to me quite obvious that the vehicle had been stolen and resold.

Call up the swat. The people that steal and resell cars are BAD NEWS. Sorry for the folks that get stiffed for thousands of dollars.
 
#42 ·
I wouldn't underestimate the amount of lead exposure which resulted from leaded gasoline. There's lead, and then there's organolead like tetraethyl lead- same distinction between mercury and organomercury such as methylmercury, which greatly affects biological uptake and harm resulting from exposure. Lead itself and its oxides aren't soluble in too many things- the acetate being one exception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead(II)_acetate

The Romans were poisoned by their pewter wine goblets and in fact by the lead acetate compounds they added to their wine to "sweeten" it- their plumbing, being pure lead, with few dissimilar metal connections etc. and carrying water rather than acetate, wasn't a big source- probably less than semi-modern plumbing which used lead solder and which was FULL of dissimilar metal connections. While a winemaker tries to avoid making vinegar, there is always a little acetic acid in wine, which makes the recovery of lead acetate possible from lead-containing pewterware. Modern pewters are lead free for the most part.

Phantom, we agree about the US fiscal situation- it's beyond an embarrassment and into the realm of being dangerous on an international level. We likely do not agree on the best way to solve it.

As to Canada's fiscal responsibility- we as a nation have always wrung our hands about being mere "hewers of wood and drawers of water", i.e. not extracting enough value from our natural resources. As it turns out, had we made those investments in value added industries, globalization would have killed them all anyway, so we're benefitting from our lack of investment in a perverse way. The people who make the goods for lower labour costs still need to buy the raw materials from someone, so here we are, selling raw logs to the Chinese and buying furniture and hardwood flooring back from them.

We've seen corporate taxes in Canada lowered to such an extent that US headquartered multinational corporations such as Burger King are moving (on paper) to Canada in order to pay less US corporate tax- a loophole that I'm sure the US feds will close promptly. Net result for Canada? Take-overs of Canadian corps to dilute the US assets, no net new jobs, and no significant increase in Canadian tax revenue either, ie.. not much of anything except a pure loss to the US Fed. I think our corporate tax rates are far too low- I think the cost of lowering those rates to government revenue is far higher than the benefit of attracting and retaining investment. There's no shortage of capital in Canada already- our corporate balance sheets are piled high with cash just like they are in the US. They have the money, but aren't investing it in creating jobs, partially here because the tax is so low- why take the risk on reinvestment when you can take it out in dividends which are taxed favourably when compared to income?

Another thing that might surprise you was that no Canadian bank needed a cent of government money to bail it out in 2008, because we regulate them still based on rules made in the 1930s based on learning from the 1929 crash. When the big five banks all cried "deregulation now, or we'll starve!", we said no- thank God. No other developed country had that favourable outcome as far as I know. And yes, we have forgotten some of that learning- we're allowing the four pillars (banks, trusts, insurance and brokerage) to consolidate into megacorps again whereas we once required strict isolation between them. The time will come when this will bite us in the collective @ss, for sure.

I hear you: taxes on ordinary working folks are high enough to look like slavery, and some of that money is wasted- much more so if you're a person who feels that any money spent helping others is wasted, but even putting that definition aside we can agree that what we have now is actually a tax on the poor to theek the nests of upper middle class government employees- teachers here earn the same median pay as engineers, once you account for the difference in holiday time!

What pisses me off most is that the average Joe can't escape these taxes, while those who own the most have the wherewithal to hire professionals to find ways to shirk their responsibilities. Unlike most "liberals", I'd be happy with a progressive tax or even a flat tax on all income, irrespective of how it was earned, combined with a HUGE estate tax to keep the dynasties in check. And I'd set up the system of tax and welfare such that you do better and better in every way with every extra hour you work. I'd take away all disincentives to gainful employment, but I'd also take away all artificial pressures on wages as well as taking away the current system which treats a dollar earned by investment as worth two to three dollars earned by the sweat of your brow- that's just plain idiotic.

If I were in the 'States, the first massive disincentive to employment I'd get rid of would be the entire private healthcare system, the lion's share of which is funded by a de-facto payroll tax which goes mostly into private hands. No such problem here in Canada of course- we have a single payor system which costs only 11% of GDP to cover 100% of the population versus your 17-18% of GDP which still leaves many uncovered. Treating healthcare as a commodity rather than as a human right does nothing in this case to make its provision more efficient.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top