Are we all left-tards here?

Come on now.  Are we?  While I myself wouldn't look for bible-thumping republicans, I think we should at least have a few moderates or radicals like libertarians ETC... 

Or is it the disproportionate european population here?

Atlas Shrugged

Hahahah, Ayn Rand? Get the fuck out.

>>119
Err...  The government would retain control over the police and the military, so there'd be no vacuum to fill...  And how would corporations have more power over individuals without some sort of "social safety net"?

And stop talking in this stupid "corporations want to keep the people stupid so they can exploit them!  OMG HAX!" You're still stuck in the master/slave mindset when modern society is capitalist; people give them money, so it's not in the corporate's interest to bring society down in burning flames.

It's not very widely known with today's dichotomous social climate (corporate=right populist=left) but most libertarians I know believe in rules which would be tougher on corporations than any other political movement. Forced total transparency for large corporations etc... so that things like the wal-mart memo that said to hire younger workers  wouldn't be hidden anymore; corporations would have to keep on the up and up.  Their power would be counteracted with as little interference to the individual as possible.  That's what libertarianism is all about.  It's not about leaving a vacuum of power, it's about how that power SHOULD be applied.

And with regard to social safety nets; forced personal savings accounts for certain things are a better idea than pure socialism.

I just think it's broken how in canada people who make in the yearly 50,000 dollar range are taxed to a standard of living on par with those who are making 25,000.  They say the tax is progressive, that only the rich will pay out the ass, but 50,000 doesn't seem that rich. 

>>121
I highly doubt you've ever actually read one of her books... I doubt even more, sir, that you can come up with an intelligent rebuke to any of her philosophical ideas.

>>123
What's with this "forced" savings account crap you keep talking about? Sure it's better than socialism, but not much isn't better than socialism.
Look, let economic 'evolution' take it's course. When enough people have learned their lesson, it'll straighten itself out as opposed to everyone being coerced into it and never gaining a clue about money matters. Simple.

For once I have to agree with John. Replacing socialist policies with forced saving accounts is retarded.

PS. Yes, I've read Ayn Rand's novels (and shove that "sir" up your ass). I entered some international essay competition for the Ayn Rand Institute when I was 15. Even as a kid, I found her books totally juvenile. She's fantastic at setting up caricatures, and is a heavy idealist. Well, we've seen what happens when ideals meet reality.

Ayn Rand is no Ursula LeGuin, that's for sure, even though I don't agree with that writer either. Pointing to Rand is the no.1 way to get yourself laughed at.

>>125
I see where you're coming from in that her stories are really exaggerated in order to get her points across. Maybe she 'was' a heavy idealist, and maybe people just aren't willing to go along with the effort involved in living up to those ideals, but personally, I'd like to live in a world where those ideals worked... And I don't see you making an argument against any of her philosophies. I'm curious.

I made my argument. Her ideals won't work, just like Marxism didn't, and Anarchism probably won't. Exaggeration may help to drive the point home, but it's a literary device, and ultimately we don't live in such a world. What works in fiction may not work in fact.

Her books are entertaining, but Objectivism seems to make no allowances for human foibles. I'd be delighted if such a thing were possible, but I find it unlikely. Ergo, I favour what has been empirically tested and show to be both pleasant and stable.

Having lived in numerous countries, I find that the more socialist democracies are nicer to live in. The populations are healthier, better educated, lead more stable lives (read: less office politics, less "redundancies"), and have more control over the powers that be. You can go too far (I've also lived in a communist country), but that applies for both extremes. Again, this isn't either/or.

Once you find an effective Objectivist society that isn't inhumane, let me know; I'll reassess my beliefs.

>>127
Isn't that a rather pessimistic position to take? -_-
I don't buy that it's not possible, though given that the general attitude of people these days seems to be simply not giving a damn, at least here it is, then maybe I am being unrealistic...

Maybe I am a pessimist, but we live in an inherently dirty world. Objectivism is intellectually quite clean; it's probably internally coherent. However, there is a mismatch between theoretical cleanliness and reality; this is the same problem that ravaged Marxism, or true laissez-faire economics. Just because it looks nice doesn't mean it'll work.

The governments we have today evolved this way. I like to think of states as living organisms, responding to external and internal pressures. Those that don't eventually fail. Those that succeed are often copied by other states. The result may not be clean, with numerous warts and hairs, but it works.

If you'd like to attempt to evolve a current system towards Objectivist ideals, by all means, do so. However, the resistance you're meeting indicates that it probably isn't an ideal solution for the problem space. You can blame it on poor bums, or corrupt official, but in reality the factors leading to the resistance are far more numerous, interrelated, and complex.

I won't pretend to know how the current system works, even though I have a better idea than most people (uni education and all that). What I can say from personal experience is that based on the trends I've seen, I doubt a society following the ideals of Objectivism will be successful.

>>129
Well, to each his own...
It may have an inherently dirty side, but it also has an inherently beautiful side. It's just sad to see which side a lot of people seem to give in to out of, I think it all boils down to, simple laziness. You get whichever you work toward, is my take.

I think it all boils down to, simple laziness.

But is that really the case? Are you certain that isn't just a convenient brush to paint over defects in the theory?

>>131
Well, what are the defects? I could say simply that not everybody has the same will to live, which is true. I mean sure, some people need help with that, nobody's able to make themselves perfectly happy with existence and all that it entails. That's where the theory comes in, to help them realize that the life of a human being is not doomed to misery and strife as long as you're willing to put up the effort, and that's what I meant by laziness. Perhaps I didn't phrase that last post well enough.

I think most people have concluded that life is not doomed to misery and strife, at least in a stable society (are you familiar with Maslow's hierarchy?). If Objectivism is a cure for that, it's in search of a sickness.

Ayn Rand used flat characters for her literature. Either a person was one of the hard-working heros, or the lazy antagonists leeching off of them. There was no middle ground. In reality, the middle ground makes up the vast majority of people. In reality, no man is an island, despite Rand's convenient oversight. The gross oversimplifications that Rand used to demonstrate her philosophy border on the silly. I lay claim that is because they won't work in reality.

Now, how do you define laziness? Unemployment? But most OECD countries have unemployment below 10%, and a sizable percentage of that are actively seeking new work. Or is it hard work? Are you a hard worker? 48 hours per week? More? If it's hours worked, or joules consumed, or whatever metric you choose, you'll always be "lazier" than someone else.

There are no simple answers.

The whole laziness thing is bunk. Many people live hand to mouth despite working hard. If we were to reward income according to effort, we would have millionaire factory workers, miners and garbage men.

>>133
Sure there were middle-groundish characters, but what good would they do with big parts in the story? Take Eddie Willers in Atlas Shrugged, for example. Most people don't aspire to anything above the middle ground. That's why they stay there. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that.
"In reality, no man is an island"
That has to be one of the most pathetic anti-individual sayings I've ever heard. Why do you want to surrender to the feeling that you're just another brick in the wall simply because you live in society? You're an individual. Act like one...
I never defined laziness as unemployment. Unemployment could mean a hurricane knocked everything down, or it could come from the fact that someone's just a bum. Laziness is simply an unwillingness to better a situation.

>>134
Factory workers, miners, and garbage men don't create opportunities and employment for people. There will always be people that care for no higher position. And hey, they serve those purposes... Income typically isn't, and shouldn't be, rewarded accoring to physical effort. Doesn't matter how many scyscrapers and factories you build if you can't make them productive.

Why do you want to surrender to the feeling that you're just another brick in the wall simply because you live in society?

With all due respect, just because you realize that you're a part of society has nothing to do with losing individuality.

No man is an island. That car you drive, did you design it? Did you pop into existance ex nihilo, or were you raised by parents? Did you write the books you read? Or develop the science that allows you to type on a computer?

For fuck's sake, I though we were getting somewhere, then you resort to the same caricature as Rand. I am an individual. I am also a member of society, a family, and a network of friends. So are you. There is no contradiction.

There will always be people that care for no higher position.

That's pretty disgusting. I'm certain all the poor would also like to be millionaires.

You become a millionaire by hard work, right? No, that's only part of it. You also need to be ruthless and lucky. Some people aren't that fortunate, and the rest don't want to give up their humanity for a few dollars.

If you stab your friend in the back for $10,000, was it worth it?

>>137

many people would like to work hard enough to provide for themselves and their families, while pursuing other interests than monetary gain.

>>136
That sure didn't sound like your attitude at first...

>>137
It's disgusting, but true. And how in the hell do you see ambition as giving up your humanity?

>>138
What's your point?

>>139
Why do you keep bothering?

HELLO. I AM AN OBJECTIVIST FURFAG. ALL THE WORLD IS FILLED WITH LAZY BUMS EXCEPT ME. EVEN THOUGH I JUST CAMP AT WORLD4CH ALL DAY LONG. CLEARLY I AM JOHN GALT.

PS. LAZY MEANS WHAT I WANT IT TO, NOT WHAT'S IN THE DICTIONARY.

YOU COMMUNIST NAZI JEW.

>>138

the point is that we can and should encourage such arrangements alongside raw entrepeneurship, via lowered population, smarter education, and abundantly available gainful employment (which becomes ever easier to acquire if population declines.  This in turn lowers crime).  It is precisely these other pursuits which feed the entrepeneurship you fetishize, and enhance culture at large.

the point is that there is no real need for you to have any right to your psychological satisfaction at the idea that this broad group of people is successful, while that broad group of people lives below the poverty line.  But 'real poverty' can be made statistically insignificant.

>>140
My real name is John, durhurhur. :B
The world is filled with lazy bums, and I am an exception. So kiss my objectivist furfag ass. D:

Main Entry: 1la·zy
Pronunciation: 'lA-zE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): la·zi·er; -est
Etymology: perhaps from Middle Low German lasich feeble; akin to Middle High German erleswen to become weak
1 a : disinclined to activity or exertion : not energetic or vigorous

Hmm, was I really that far off?

HELLO, MY NAME IS JOHN, AS OPPOSED TO ACTUALLY MAKING INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION WHILE CAMPING ON WORLD4CH ALL DAY LONG, I LIKE TO INSTEAD MAKE FUN OF THE PEOPLE I DON'T LIKE IN ALL-CAPS.

>> However, the resistance you're meeting indicates that it probably isn't an ideal solution for the problem space

Doesn't mean that at all.  Just because someone opposes it it's wrong, WTF?

BTW, what's so stupid about forced personal savings accounts university guy who isn't john?

>>143
Because like, that's a better solution in my eyes than socialism...  Gives people the opportunity to have these stable lives you talk about (don't think it's actually significant) and there's not as much of a window for government corruption (EG, taking the tax money that was laid for use on these brilliant social programs and spending it on stupid things).

>>144
BTW, does that ever happen in your shining european utopias?

Stop pointing to your own posts. It's annoying.

>>144 "spending it on stupid things"
Like the National Paper Industry Hall of Fame...

>>143 Oh, you know you're still gonna get another reply out of me anyway... :3
What more of an answer do you need as to why they're stupid than the one I gave you before? "Social safety nets", as some of you people love to call them on here, as much as you hate to see it this way, they HURT THE ECONOMY. When you give people an excuse to just not have to know a thing about how a real economy works, and when the government just takes care of it all, then you get ... a society full of bums and people that don't know how an economy works! Yeah, that's really productive! And I've already ranted enough about personal responsibility, so I'll spare you that. But, then again, no matter how much leftists love to blab about their open-mindedness, they're just as stubborn about their ideas as the people they bitch about being closed-minded. Of course, this is world4ch, so I guess I'm just pissing into the wind here...

>>143
What's so stupid? Isn't it self-evident?

If you disagree with socialist policies, that's fine. But if you're forcing people to have accounts anyway doesn't that defeat the purpose? You're interfering in their lives, forcing them to do something. In short, you're still a nanny state.

"But wait," you cry, "it's the same, just more transparent!" Sure, but it's clear you know shit about economics. All those funds tied up in bank accounts will strangle the economy. If the government has the funds, at least they're doing something with it. Likewise, if someone is free to do what they want, they'll probably do something with it, like, say, either spend it or invest it.

You could argue the bank does something with your money, but because they have to be fiscally conservative with the dough, they won't leverage it all that well. Certainly not as much as a free person probably would.

>>148
Well, the point is that you're allowed to invest it as you see fit, or to let certain agencies that would specialize in that do it for you on commission if you're not some stock market genious.  Guess I didn't specify that.

And your economic arguments stem from the theory that debt is a good thing for some people to have...  Well, look at our own national deficit.

I don't care about being a "nanny state." What I care about is the baldface theft that exists in our current system...  The way politicians dip into social security funds for their own purposes, and the way you don't <i>actually</i> (how the hell do I do itallics on world4ch already?) get out what you put in.

>>149
Use []'s instead of <>'s.

Social security was a government scam that way from the beginning...

>>1
Hey, I'm European and I'm a right-wing liberal.

>>151
Wow, that's completely not ambiguous at all.

this is the internet, where only young men go, why even ask

>>149
And your economic arguments stem from the theory that debt is a good thing for some people to have...

What?

No, really, how do you go from money flowing in the economy to debt being good?

>>150
It wasn't a scam. It worked quite well, providing funds for the government (it still does), and later providing money to people when they retire. It didn't matter what the government did with the money so long as what went in later came back out.

There's just one big problem: the current system assumes that there are more younger people. Either the population keeps on expanding, or there is a high mortality rate. Since nowadays neither of these is the case in most Western societies, this assumption is false. Zero or lower population growth will put a nail in the coffin of social security.

I usually favour social policies, but you can't argue with math. The money will either need to come from elsewhere (cuts to other services, higher taxes, etc), or SS will need to go.

(or they really bump the retirement age)

>>147 wrote: "Social safety nets" ... HURT THE ECONOMY. ...a society full of bums and people that don't know how an economy works! Yeah, that's really productive!"

You are proceeding from ideology, rather than from reality. Social spending does not "hurt" the economy. Studies have shown that when people's health are cared for, when they have decent homes to live in and good education, productivity increases. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this.

Take a look at Finland. They are number one in global competitiveness and have one of the most extensive (and expensive) social spending programs. They have free healthcare, free education (from K through graduate school), state mandated 5-week paid holidays (though the custom is for the employer to throw in another week), social housing, etc. Your beliefs do not accord with the facts.

http//www.weforum.org/...

>>157
Also finland has less dead weight...

>>158
Such amazing utopian shit would never work in the US.  We'd end up spending a ton of money and it getting us nowhere.  The reason is that we have more immigrants, more problems in all. 

>>157
Wait a minute... why is the US number 2 then?