Paul has a good point there. You can never underestimate selfishness of a man.
Such a caste exists already in many places and when their percentage of overall population exceeds 50, they will always vote people who give them more money and services. I hope this does not lead to worldwide idiocracy where it is painful to be intellectual or productive. In grand scale, this just might be one of the reasons why we have not seen evidence of any intelligent civilizations in space (sorry, my mind got better of me here ). See the Fermi paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
I typed up a long post, but wiped it out because it didn't really say what I want and I'm not sure how to put it. I will say the following.
Great quote from a great man (Benjamin Franklin), and I quite agree. However, maybe you misread what I'm trying to say, and for that, I apologize. I'm far from the most eloquent writer when it comes to philosophical debate. I'm good at 1s and 0s. Mostly, I fail to anticipate other people's assumptions and expectations and make too many of my own.
Also, could you site that passage you posted? I would like to read the rest of it. I find that passage... interesting. (I'll go with that word for it. )
Let me just try to summarize as simply as possible: I'm open to any ideas that help improve the common good no matter how strange they might sound, how much or how little they may cost. I'm all for lower taxes as long as we don't have to worry about greedy individuals destroying the human race or its future, or at least destroying what's left of the prosperity this country has come to enjoy over the last 100-150 years or so. Just remember that it was the same Mr. Franklin that was involved in the writing of the US Constitution.
(And I apologize again. I misquoted "common good". The phrases are "common defense" and "general Welfare'.)
I am a moderator. I moderate stuff. When I do, I write in this color.
JohnCarver wrote:anybody who argues to remove a mechanic that allows "yet another" way to summon somebody is really a carebear in disguise trying to save his own hide.
MagicManICT wrote:Also, could you site that passage you posted? I would like to read the rest of it. I find that passage... interesting. (I'll go with that word for it. )
The concept is the "Pyramid of Ability," and was a portion of a monologue by the character John Galt in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
You can read a bit more of the passage here. The entire Galt speech itself goes on for ~50-70 pages, and I don't think it's (legally) posted anywhere on the interwebs.
You know, I often do wonder why these intellectual giants even bother cooperating with the working class dregs rather than doing it all by themselves and getting all the profits
Potjeh wrote:You know, I often do wonder why these intellectual giants even bother cooperating with the working class dregs rather than doing it all by themselves and getting all the profits
Coming from the Titan of Industry himself. An unparalleled paragon of the business world.
Ikpeip wrote:The concept is the "Pyramid of Ability," and was a portion of a monologue by the character John Galt in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.
I've always wondered where she got the basis for her books. I am reading through the article on Wikipedia, and now I know. She couldn't be more anti-communist and yet more like them at the same time.... We are all but a product of our environment. It shapes our world views, beliefs, and actions. I'm sure I could learn more if I keep going. (I really need to read her two books... maybe after I get done with A Dance with Dragons.... But Bill Maher keeps telling me they are intellectual drivel! )
Potjeh wrote:You know, I often do wonder why these intellectual giants even bother cooperating with the working class dregs rather than doing it all by themselves and getting all the profits
Labor strikes. They can't make money if we all lay down. Of course, the hunger pangs start to sit in and we have to compromise and go back to work. Too bad we can't all throw off the yokes of industry and go back to an agrarian society, but we all enjoy our modern civilization too much. We couldn't sit around and philosophize on what is right and wrong with the world.
Potjeh wrote:Ah, good old ad hominem.
It's the old political stand-by. When in doubt, sling mud.
I am a moderator. I moderate stuff. When I do, I write in this color.
JohnCarver wrote:anybody who argues to remove a mechanic that allows "yet another" way to summon somebody is really a carebear in disguise trying to save his own hide.
I'll take another quote from that speech and argue against it:
"The machine, the frozen form of a living intelligence, is the power that expands the potential of your life by raising the productivity of your time. If you worked as a blacksmith in the mystics’ Middle Ages, the whole of your earning capacity would consist of an iron bar produced by your hands in days and days of effort. How many tons of rail do you produce per day if you work for Hank Rearden? Would you dare to claim that the size of your pay check was created solely by your physical labor and that those rails were the product of your muscles? The standard of living of that blacksmith is all that your muscles are worth; the rest is a gift from Hank Rearden."
I would argue that Rearden owes the worker for the use of that land which is part of the country we all live in. Rearden owes the workers for the ability of the democratically organized and legally organized government to defend that land with laws and men who may or may not work on that railroad. Rearden also pays that worker's children's education so that they grow up with a decent education and possibilities so that they don't turn to criminality and use their libertarian rights to take what they need or want and rip up that rail for scrap and sell it to some other metal merchant. Rearden owes the workers for doing a good job and not going on strike and if they decide to collectively bargain then he owes them the decency to negotiate honestly. If not then the workers may exert their right to simply rip his damn rail up and put him under by any means necessary. Libertarianism works both ways.
Rearden owns nothing if the workers don't let him. He owns the land, means to labor and possibly some of the technology and patents under the laws of the country as democratically determined by his workers. The collective creation of the means of labor are owned by everyone, protected by democracy and regulated by the government.
Making money off the labor of others is not a right. It's a privilege given by the voting masses that created the government he lives under and it can be taken away or regulated at anytime based on the laws they create, not on Ayn Rand's delusional ideas of ownership or idiotic libertarian beliefs.
As for taxes:
Americans are taxed much less than in the past right now. Everything form income taxes to capital gains taxes to sales taxes are less than they were at other times in the last 60 years. We are not taxed too much. That is a lie of the Conservative Right.
The non-partisan CBO (Congressional Budget Office) found that lowering taxes on the Rich to stimulate the economy did not work over the last 30 years. Reaganomics failed.
Sen. Baucus asked them to redo their 2007 analysis of the 25 years with different guidelines and they still proved that taxing less does not work to stimulate economic growth for the country. Only for the rich.
jorb wrote:(jwhitehorn) you are an ungrateful, spoiled child
As the river rolled over the cliffs, my own laughing joy was drowned out by the roaring deluge of the water. The great cataract of Darwoth's Tears fell over and over endlessly.
MagicManICT wrote:(I really need to read her two books... maybe after I get done with A Dance with Dragons.... But Bill Maher keeps telling me they are intellectual drivel! )
I find it entirely appropriate the left's political philosophers are sub-par comedians. That aside, you should read F.A. Hayek's The Fatal Conceit and The Road to Serfdom as a higher priority than Rand's books, if you can stomach the nonfiction. To make it easier, begin with this YouTube video comparing Hayeks and Keynes.
MagicManICT wrote:Labor strikes. They can't make money if we all lay down. Of course, the hunger pangs start to sit in and we have to compromise and go back to work. Too bad we can't all throw off the yokes of industry and go back to an agrarian society, but we all enjoy our modern civilization too much. We couldn't sit around and philosophize on what is right and wrong with the world.
If someone else is willing to do your job, for the same wage you are, as good as you can (or good enough that the difference doesn't matter to the employer), then you don't deserve more than you're making. If losing you as an employee and having to hire (and train) someone else is less painful to the employer than giving you a raise, you don't deserve more than you're making. Also problematic for your cause is that the employers are often the people who will fare best on their own - make too much trouble and they'll just say "to hell with it." They'll still be able to make a living, and you'll be stuck without employment options.
Claeyt wrote:
I'll take another quote from that speech and argue against it:
Yeah, changing the topic and then trying to argue that point, instead of addressing the topic at hand, is par for the course for you.
Claeyt wrote:
"The machine, the frozen form of a living intelligence, is the power that expands the potential of your life by raising the productivity of your time. If you worked as a blacksmith in the mystics’ Middle Ages, the whole of your earning capacity would consist of an iron bar produced by your hands in days and days of effort. How many tons of rail do you produce per day if you work for Hank Rearden? Would you dare to claim that the size of your pay check was created solely by your physical labor and that those rails were the product of your muscles? The standard of living of that blacksmith is all that your muscles are worth; the rest is a gift from Hank Rearden."
I would argue that Rearden owes the worker for the use of that land which is part of the country we all live in. Rearden owes the workers for the ability of the democratically organized and legally organized government to defend that land with laws and men who may or may not work on that railroad. Rearden also pays that worker's children's education so that they grow up with a decent education and possibilities so that they don't turn to criminality and use their libertarian rights to take what they need or want and rip up that rail for scrap and sell it to some other metal merchant. Rearden owes the workers for doing a good job and not going on strike and if they decide to collectively bargain then he owes them the decency to negotiate honestly. If not then the workers may exert their right to simply rip his damn rail up and put him under by any means necessary. Libertarianism works both ways.
Rearden owns nothing if the workers don't let him. He owns the land, means to labor and possibly some of the technology and patents under the laws of the country as democratically determined by his workers. The collective creation of the means of labor are owned by everyone, protected by democracy and regulated by the government.
Making money off the labor of others is not a right. It's a privilege given by the voting masses that created the government he lives under and it can be taken away or regulated at anytime based on the laws they create, not on Ayn Rand's delusional ideas of ownership or idiotic libertarian beliefs.
Your political philosophy arguments all rest on the idea that men are born slaves - people can only do what other "let them." I reject this line of thinking outright.
Claeyt wrote:
As for taxes:
Americans are taxed much less than in the past right now. Everything form income taxes to capital gains taxes to sales taxes are less than they were at other times in the last 60 years. We are not taxed too much. That is a lie of the Conservative Right.
The non-partisan CBO (Congressional Budget Office) found that lowering taxes on the Rich to stimulate the economy did not work over the last 30 years. Reaganomics failed.
Sen. Baucus asked them to redo their 2007 analysis of the 25 years with different guidelines and they still proved that taxing less does not work to stimulate economic growth for the country. Only for the rich.
Your post got the response it deserved. You, of all people, should appreciate the value of a man who can provide others with meaningful employment. You, lacking the initiative and innovative spirit to lift yourself up from your situation, need a hero to come along and save you. But instead of celebrating those who take on the extra burden and risk to start their own ventures (and through doing so, provide value to all those around them), you snipe at them and bite at their hands. It takes a person in a wretched state to hold such a view.
There are people here who could help you, and would help you, if you seemed worth employing. But everything you project shows you are slow to assume responsibility for your mistakes, and quick to blame others. I am harsh with you because no amount of coddling will prove the hard reset your worldview needs. It will take a deep bout of self-reflection and honest self-assessment if you're going to shrug off the malaise and put your shoulder to the wheel. Unfortunately, I don't think you have it in you.
Rounding back to your initial bleat...
Potjeh wrote:You know, I often do wonder why these intellectual giants even bother cooperating with the working class dregs rather than doing it all by themselves and getting all the profits
I'll take another quote from that speech and argue against it:
Yeah, changing the topic and then trying to argue that point, instead of addressing the topic at hand, is par for the course for you.
Any use of the insane philosophies of Ayn Rand will bring a response from me. I was addressing your use of her works, not your argument with Magic.
Ikpeip wrote:
Claeyt wrote:
As for taxes:
Americans are taxed much less than in the past right now. Everything form income taxes to capital gains taxes to sales taxes are less than they were at other times in the last 60 years. We are not taxed too much. That is a lie of the Conservative Right.
The non-partisan CBO (Congressional Budget Office) found that lowering taxes on the Rich to stimulate the economy did not work over the last 30 years. Reaganomics failed.
Sen. Baucus asked them to redo their 2007 analysis of the 25 years with different guidelines and they still proved that taxing less does not work to stimulate economic growth for the country. Only for the rich.
The failures of Reagonomics along with it's little brother, 'the Bush Tax Cuts' is settled. You'll notice right there on the graph on the Wikipedia page the growth in income disparity and the death of the middle class. 90% of the median income and family wealth growth has gone to the rich since Reagan's tax cuts. We've lived in stagnant slow growth since more and more wealth has been frozen in the hands of the rich. Currently I pay twice as much in taxes as Mitt Romney and make much less. Reaganomics has failed. The CBO's report proves it.
Potjeh wrote:You know, I often do wonder why these intellectual giants even bother cooperating with the working class dregs rather than doing it all by themselves and getting all the profits
I knew you'd use this article the moment I read this argument with the Ayn Rand quote. I read this article when it came out and you're completely missing the point of why the company moved back to the states.
Yes, the company automated and eliminated positions just like every other manufacturer over the last 30 years. But the reasons they came back were more than that. It included stability of product, stability of politics and availability of energy for cheap electricity along with a lot of other reasons that our country provided.
They gave multiple communication, quality control and development issue examples as to why a better product is easier to make here. All of these had to do with location, communication options and a cultural divide with oversea manufacturers. They gave examples of the availability of the Internet, phone communications and travel options, all government regulated, supported and partially built aspects to their manufacturing center.
They gave the example of the stability of the American laws and regulations, and the country's safety as it compares to worker's rights in Bangladesh and management safety in Mexico. Our democracy is stronger than there and manufacturers realize this before they invest millions of dollars in production technology like this. This stability provided by the government is part of who we are as a nation and how strong our laws are for both worker safety during production and stability of the communities around their manufacturing center.
They also showed that although there are less workers the workers have to be better trained and make much more money than the workers of the 70's. They still save money but they have to count on the U.S. education system to partial train their workers and then they have to invest in the workers themselves. This is an example of the future of employee/company relationships in manufacturing and why we need to invest in greater educational options for people to get jobs like these.
All of this was a prime example of the German model of economic stability in manufacturing. Well trained workers with strong safety rights along with safe, stable investment in high tech manufacturing methods supported by the government and ready access to government supported communication, transportation methods and energy resources will lead to a better manufacturing method of production. It may be a little more expensive but it will be better quality and less risk than production in some 3rd world nation that hasn't implemented these laws, workers rights or aspects to production.
None of this would have been possible in the libertarian fantasy world of Ayn Rand's views on workers rights or the role of a democratic government in both providing for and regulating manufacturing and production.
jorb wrote:(jwhitehorn) you are an ungrateful, spoiled child
As the river rolled over the cliffs, my own laughing joy was drowned out by the roaring deluge of the water. The great cataract of Darwoth's Tears fell over and over endlessly.
). See the Fermi paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
)
![¦]](./images/smilies/troll.gif "Trollface")
)
