Why Objectivism fails in the United States
Because there aren't enough sane people left to make it work!
This also explains MUCH about not only our medical system but our government in general! It is also no wonder to me that the top ten on the list are decidedly left-leaning states. Michael Savage may be right when he asserts that "liberalism is a mental disorder."
This also explains MUCH about not only our medical system but our government in general! It is also no wonder to me that the top ten on the list are decidedly left-leaning states. Michael Savage may be right when he asserts that "liberalism is a mental disorder."
I actually think the tenancy for letting people "coast" comes from the lack of understanding of the discipline required to succeed. This may be a consequence of the "we are all winners" mentality.
First World Complacency, the next local minima to be overcome in human development... assuming religion will continue its decline under the light of first world science and absence of cave men scared of lightning and thunder. Of course being afraid of GMO food is roughly equivalent.
My ex-mother-in-law says things like, I have nothing against black people, I just don't want my daughter to marry one. My kids don't even understand what the difference and all the fuss is. Two generations, just about gone, except for Al Sharpton and welfare.
The old USSR used to do the same thing with dissidents except they put them in mental institutions since they couldn't understand they were already living in a workers paradise.
But descriptions of the not as well known mass condemnations by the National Park Service and the mass commitment of "mountain people" to asylums are harder to find.
Nobody stays here by faking reality in any manner whatever.
100% in the oval office
(Don't like my stats, make up your own ;^)
Anyways the reason it fails is the reason why a lot of things fail. Too complex and too many voices fighting over the myriad of issues addressed in it and it is not reduced to it's lowest common denominator. Meaning that to fully understand objectivism you could not pick it up in a day or less, even though it is inherently moral.
If those who follow it cannot even agree then how do you expect to convert others?
This wasn't a matter of people realizing they could abuse government power, it was due to a major shift in philosophical outlook. Changes in interpretation of the Constitution were rationalizations of that.
If those people are disabled from bona fide mental illness, I wish we could catch it before it became debilitating. If they're faking, I wish we could detect it and get them off the program.
It's sad that those commentators live on left/right ideological sanctimony and indirectly contribute to these problems.
I always agreed with Romney's comment, give or take a few percent. About half the people don't pay income taxes, so income taxes won't be the biggest issue for them. It's just a fact. I don't understand the controversy.
I don't think that's related to this article though.
Here is an article about the difficulty of why most people don't accept Rand, and why perhaps that doesn't matter.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/201...
A contagion, that apparently starts and spreads out from the nation's capitol... hmm, that explains much.
A collectivist is one who believes that the majority should be able to be forced by the government to subsidize the lifestyles of others. Objectivists strongly reject this idea.
Helidrvr's snarling misrepresention of Ayn Rand as a "collectivist" is because he doesn't like that Ayn Rand was not an anarchist. Never mind that you can't have a society based on individualism with protection of the rights of the individual under anarchy, but not everyone is attracted to Atlas Shrugged for valid reasons.
My reading of the objectivism in AS and Fountainhead is it's a philosophy consisted with limited gov't, but it doesn't tell you details about gov't. Some readers may form factions, identity groups, or whatever that provide an informal orthodoxy of what objectivists are supposed to think on policy questions, but this is contrary to objectivism. Objectivism, in my reading of the books, is about thinking for yourself, respecting others' right to their own life and what they make of it, being honest with yourself about what you observe, using rational critical thinking to examine the world, and acting based on what *you* believe is right for *you* and never out of pity, guilt, or any emotion or thought associated with managing what *other people* think.
An agreement written or verbal, forged by mutual agreement free consent by and between parties, is not "collectivist" in any way shape or form.
Of course, if the agreement between parties is to FORCE someone or some other group to do something against their best interest or against their will, or coerce in some way to provide something in support of others. Then you have a collectivist agreement.
ObamaCare is one such agreement, made 100% by Democrats against the will of the people to force some to pay for something they may not want or need to support others who demand by virtue of tears and guns Health Insurance. Refer to Francisco's speech on money.
Hmm that was interesting -- this was supposed to go under helidrvr.