A question about (p)Res__ent Obama and the racial implications of the Zimmerman trial
Because Obama is half-white, and because he supports the Trayvon narrative, does that mean that if Zimmerman is found innocent we get to watch Obama throw himself a beatin'?
What's new, Euda? I feel like we haven't had any interaction in an age! I hope you are well and the writing is is coming along as you envision. Keep I touch. Are you in WY yet?
It's called political satire.
It's what I do.
But it's LONG been known that the boring, boorish, sanctimonious, Marxist Left has no sense of humor.
My personal philosophy about satire, if you're not pissing off someone, you're not doing it correctly.
My personal opinion about you... "but, I don't think of you".
Thanks for reading, and be sure to get worked up into a boring, boorish, sanctimonious, Marxist froth over my upcoming book.
Oh yeah, and say "Hi" to my buddy Pat Condell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85q6BOnw...
And then the marxists take it to the next level by telling the non-X folks that they are a non-X because the X folks are "in control" and are "depriving them" of whatever.
The race card is only one of the arrows in their quiver. If there is a black involved, then the race card is a good tool to use to piss off all of the blacks -- irrespective of whether race is involved or not.
The "race card" will all but vanish, I believe, when the marxists/progressives are destroyed.
I saw a contestant on America's Got Talent the other night. A black guy wearing a cowboy hat and sang country. He was really good too. He said that he grew up in a neighborhood filled with gangs, drugs etc. He made the choice to leave, and learn a trade, and now he wants to be a singer. It's all about personal responsibility and self determination not about the color of your skin.
Besides aren't whites the only ones who can be racist?
It's forgotten.
I can't guarantee that we will agree on everything, but it is obvious from your posts that we can at least discuss.
I look forward to our future conversations.
Rick (Eudaimonia)
Equal opportunity: it's true that it's not guaranteed. But, limited liability is taken from all equally. Why would each not be granted access to the benefits of that theft equally according to business standards that are objective in the same way that taxes are objectively imposed?
Corporation as suspect: limited liability is proof that a transaction has taken place. If a person believes themselves to be defrauded in the transaction implied by the existence of limited liability, then they should have the right to demand that the corporation prove that it conformed to business standards.
If that's suspicion, I don't see how it could be principally different from checking one's receipt before leaving a store. (I think that covers the victim class claim also.)
Caucasian welfare: it's a racist statement. i believe that only Caucasians, with few exceptions, subscribe to this idea of American superiority. Ms. Rand cites the building of the western railroads as the first big example of welfare, and that's the 1800's. Limited liability, state sponsored education, Social Security, etc. are all long standing welfare programs. But, when someone says "welfare queen," we think woman, of no particular race, with bastard kids. Why don't we think about the dentist who went to public school, who used government subsidized loans for college, and is currently incorporated? He's a product of welfare.
So, the term "Caucasian welfare" refers to all the welfare upon which polite society rests. And, it's a statement about that superiority implied with racial humor-- laughing at people's misguided or misrepresented rage. These people have a reason to be angry: the U.S. is a collectivist country, but those people are expected to conform to theories of individualism when the whole country relies on collectivism.
The absurdity is demonstrated in the OP. This guy is angry because my conclusion rests on "that is a racist joke." He requires that no conclusion be made that requires that premise because if that premise is true, then he can no longer believe that he is not a racist.
"Caucasian welfare" attacks that conclusion that rests on the blank-out premise that lets us believe in American superiority.
I decline your invitation to engage in a conversation that is limited to the range of moment. This is a discussion of principles, and you have not responded materially to my previous post.
The fundamental question is clear: does one man, an investor, have the right to not be held fully responsible, relative to making victims whole, for harm that results as a consequence of his actions?
I say that there can be no such right, only a theft.
If a person's investment leads to harm of another who hasn't personally, knowingly, and willingly agreed to surrender their right to be made whole, refusal to make the injured party whole is not a natural right. As a result, limited liability does not stem from and only natural rights. It requires a theft.
Draw me out? To reveal what, individualism and respect for the ideals promulgated by Ms. Rand?
She argues against state sanctioned racism in Racism, which is in Virtue. If requiring corporations to defend their decisions regarding apparently racist practices just as they would be required to defend their tax related decisions isn't state sanctioned racism, I'd love to hear the argument proving it.
I've read Virtue, Capitalism, Fountainhead, Atlas, and have watched hours of interviews. I also paid for and watched both parts of Atlas at the theatre. Does that establish the "Adam is a fan" premise?
eta: And, I'm here because I thought that there'd be Objectivists, rather than Right wingers, discussing topics and their relations to standards established by Ms. Rand.
eta2: The slow responses seem to suggest that you all are reading Racism. She levels quite an indictment in the first paragraph. All I can say is that we all make mistakes; dust off the errors, and move forward with a better understanding of right and wrong.
It's disappointing how you have been in here such a short time and behave as a collectivist, drawing wide brushstrokes over individuals and label them "right wingers" "not objectivists." You have come in here with assumptions, and you are bent on proving them, based on collectivist ideas. As an Objectivist, why would you do that?
On corporations: I agree that limited liability is a declaration of refusal to necessarily make injured parties whole. However, corporations share the roads, share neighborhoods, the market, etc. In order for investors to make this declaration of denial of responsibility, the government must speak for every citizen who happens to cross an intersection while a corporate truck driver is approaching the light. It's collectivism.
Corporations don't have any attributes that don't go back to the rights of individuals, but the investor has usurped a value that is not his: the right of injured parties to be made whole.
Freedom of association: a person cannot avoid association with corporations as demonstrated by the intersection example. Therefore, the investor has stolen lawfully limited liability.
EEO laws: I don't know why you're mentioning disabled Hispanics. I've only implied corporations conforming to hiring the most qualified and proving it upon request.
What I do know about EEO legislation is that if a person isn't the most qualified applicant to a private industry job, then there is no law requiring that they be hired. There are exceptions to this for recipients of government subsidies, however. Care to elaborate on your claim?
Limited liability is necessary: I read Wealth of Nations recently and "laissez-faire" doesn't mean "subsidize us." If limited liability is necessary, then collectivism is necessary since limited liability is founded on the tribal premise. Reading Smith, I have no reason to believe that, but our topic is EEO, and I say that if you can't make it without stealing limited liability, then you should give value for value and prove that you're operating according to standards that compensate equitably the victims of your theft, "you" being the hypothetical investor.
You are particularly concerned with corporations and torte law. Corps are a legal person. Like any person, they have limited resources, you cannot demand that a family, associate, business partners or others are required to cover the corp's liabilities.
Corporations "sharing the roads" etc. is a collectivist comment, not rooted in private porperty or Objectivism or natural rights. I see no further reason for discussion, since you dismiss the free market, Objectivism, and Natural Rights.
Limited liability is a subsidy; it grants to one group of people a protection rooted in force from the claims of all others who may be harmed and are harmed by the consequences that are born of the object of investment.
We justify this subsidy by the benefits that the collective (since one group of people take the right to be made whole from another group, it is collective.) gains, which includes jobs and taxes.
The gain that might be said to benefit all, taxes, is protected by the corporation bearing a burden of proof that it is acting according to law.
However, the jobs for which the subsidy is sold, may or may not be rewarded according to equitable standards that require that corporations make decisions based on best business practices. However, unlike tax issues, whose remedy benefit Caucasians, hiring issues are not held to the same burden of proof. When it's taxes, America demands that corporations perform. But, for hiring, it's a different ballpark.
It seems reasonable to me that if a person who's a minority is robbed of the subsidy of limited liability just as a Caucasian, they have a right to require that, if they believe themself to have lost a job, promotion, etc. on racial grounds, the corporation be required to justify its decisions just as it would for tax questions.
Going a step farther, if investors need to be protected from risk, which is an impeachment of American culture and law, why is it that qualified minorities, because they're good for the economy, shouldn't be protected too?
Isn't limited liability the "minimum responsibility" card? What's wrong with qualified people having am effective race card if from them is acquired a minimum responsibility card?
We can agree to disagree on the Objectivist/Right wing composition of the forum. My perception, as you know, is that the ad hominem seems to be the predominant argument seen on this forum. If that is correct, then I conclude that it's not a group that celebrates rational thought. However, it is an opinion and not necessarily a fact.
In corporations. I'll defer to Mr. Peikoff on this:
"An individual can say to a storekeeper, “I would like to have credit, but I put you on notice that if I can’t pay, you can’t attach my home—take it or leave it.” The storekeeper is free to accept those terms, or not. A corporation is a cooperative productive endeavor which gives a similar warning explicitly. It has no mystical attributes, no attributes that don’t go back to the rights of individuals, including their right of free association." Objectivist Newsletter, Lexicon
Most important part: Individuals are free not to associate. Start your own business, don't choose to be an employee.
I would also like to point to unfair government practices regarding business. If I am disabled latino construction company, I by law, am looked at first and have a hiring advantage due to Equal Opportunity Laws. (sounds like something Ayn Rand would make up). Is it in my best interest to hire someone disabled to do construction work? Depends. On the INDIVIDUAL.
"Isn't limited liability the "minimum responsibility" card?"
It is necessary in order to get individuals to invest in new technologies and risky ventures. No one can predict the future, and if every decision sets a corp up to go bankrupt no one would invest, hence, no NEW jobs, world won't move forward. This is not inconsistent with pure capitalism. That is not to say, I am a fan of our litigious society. Maybe you are? I do not have to buy into your theory that every investment means I have to risk my entire wealth and more.
"If that is correct, then I conclude that it's not a group that celebrates rational thought."
*exasperated* there you go again with group think!! Stop that! The only glue in here, people were compelled by the movies, and even then, there was much disagreement. Rational thought is something we all are guilty of suspending at some point or another. Like you in this last rant
The satire, with respect, seems to me to be found in the irony that your racist humor is collectivistic in nature and your defense of it relies on an ad hominem which is collectivistic in nature. More ironic is that my brief post history reveals how anti-Marxist that I am. And, even more ironic on a site hosting an Atlas theme is that humor was one of the most important tools belonging to Toohey; who's the collectivist?
But these words are not the shibboleths of the Ruling Class, they have specific meaning and can not be strung together willy-nilly just so long as they are said and your group allegiance is pledged.
Just because you call something "collectivist" does not make it so, it does not even mean that you are using the word correctly.
"Ad hominem", wait, isn't that like making an argument by saying something like "low brow, despicable race humor"?
Your "brief post history": Exactly.
You are not yet a known quantity, you are not subscribed as a producer, and the first time I see you, you come at me like a Ruling Class Marxist in your argument form, style, and function?
Kudos on knowing I was quoting Roarke's reply to Toohey, but there's this search thingy they invented last week called "The Internet".
The fact that terms have definitions does not prove any error in my posts. You have to explain which term I misused, preferably with example and definition.
An ad hominem is an argument whose premises include a proposition whose subject is the author of the competing argument. Responding to my argument with a claim of me being a Marxist is such an argument. Me refusing to grant a sanction to humor that rests on a premise of racial stereotypes is not an ad hominem; it establishes my rejection of that premise without regard to your person.
Further, your requirement that I establish with you a "known quantity" is a declaration that the ad hominem as a norm for you; however, it's a declaration that in every argument that I make, the predicate of the irrational premise must be a statement of your approbation. You are claiming that "Adam is nice," for instance, must be established in order for "this joke is racist" to be possibly sound. Clearly, you see your error.
And, again: whether it were a search or memory that produced the reference to Toohey is irrelevant. "Adam Googled" is not a relevant premise to the conclusion "humor is a weapon against reason."
As per usual, The Marxists demand a complete disassembling of the argument and wading into the minutia.
So, here it goes:
1) You started in with an ad hominem by asserting that my humor is race based, therefore, implying that I am a racist.
2) The subject of the joke was Obama's race baiting policies which have ruined race relations in this country:
2a) Obama, when convenient, brings up his mother's race (caucasian).
2b) Obama, EXPLICITLY took sides in the Martin/Zimmerman show trial by making the inherently racist statement, "If I had a son, he would *look like* Trayvon [emphasis mine]".
2c) Obama's Justice Department has actively avoided any investigation or prosecution of The New Black Panther Party which has called for violent riots if (and I believe also regardless if) Zimmerman is found innocent.
2d) Obama's Justice Department has been caught red-handed giving taxpayer money and personnel support to "Justice for Trayvon" rallies.
3) Given all of 2, it is reasonable to conclude that Obama, through word and deed, has worsened tensions in this country, perhaps intentionally so, and ensured future racial violence.
4) Given all the previous, it is reasonable to conclude that Obama is driven by racial motivations.
5) Given all of the previous, satirizing this by illustrating the absurdist conclusions of Obama's own words and deeds is *NOT* racist. It is *good satire*.
You, sir, came at me, out of the box, not knowing a thing about me personally, not knowing the style in which I write, not knowing the motivations for my conclusions... and you called me a racist.
Then you tried to defend yourself by calling the motivations behind my satire "collectivistic [sic]".
Then you demanded to know how you used "collectivistic [sic]" incorrectly.
I know full well what Argumentum Ad Hominem is (as well as other logical fallacies), and you, sir, used Argumentem Ad Hominem against me in your very opening statement.
To point out that you used the well worn race card of the Marxist Left is not Argumentum Ad Hominem, it's Law of Identity.
To say that you are not yet a known quantity is a statement of fact supported by your own admission that your posting history is short.
Humor and Satire are both weapons, yes, and like any weapon they are just tools and devoid of ethical value.
Whether one uses them against or in defense of Reason is completely up to that person.
Saying that my satire is racist or aimed against Reason will not shut me up.
Sorry (not).
Trayvon did not know Zimmerman had a gun. Zimmerman was not "chasing" him...he was trying to keep an eye on his location to give that info to the police, whom Zimmerman called. I want to repeat that, Zimmerman was the one who called the cops. Zimmerman was not trying to be a "wannabe cop"...he CALLED the cops. You said Travon was defending himself. What, exactly, was Trayvon "defending himself" against when he was on top of Zimmerman? WHY was he on top of Zimmerman? Who had physical injuries? Who was on the bottom? Who was the physical aggressor?
Admit it Zach.... you're anti gun and THAT is your angle.
@Zach055
It doesn't matter what happened; it matters what can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
@Non-mooching-artist:
It is false that everyone has equal opportunity. Corporations, which are entities formed with the subsidy of limited liability, are the source of most good jobs. This fascist subsidy Is celebrated for what it rewards the collective.Taxes to the collective are one of the significant rewards, and when there is suspicion that the collective is not getting its taxes, the suspect corporation is audited and its practices must be defended.
Another reward for subsidizing liability, responsibility, is job creation. But, when there is suspicion surrounding the distribution of jobs to the most competent candidates, the burden of proof doesn't fall on the suspect corporation but on the victim of bigotry-- the person who spends their life becoming the best that they can be only to discover that fasco-Caucasian America disregards all competence and the obligation assumed in trade for stealing limited liability because a person's name, in the mind of American fascists, elicits ghetto images. Worse is when a cousin or friend, etc. are favored.
All this, and the victim is held responsible for the result.
And, who has ever pulled themselves up by boot straps? Certainly not Caucasian America whose claims of such are a form of collectivism-- a nation of scum attemptIng to identify with the likes of Ford, Carnegie, Walton, etc.
Boot straps, my ass. Caucasian America is a welfare whore. Everything you do in this country requires you to worship at the altar of the elderly, Social Security. Everything that you do in the country requires you to worship at the altar of the military, command consumption. Everything you do in this country requires you to worship at some altar of "give me." And, now that Caucasian welfare is so overwhelming that middle America is collapsing, you think that a person from the ghetto can overcome the burden of learning fascist American culture, camoflauged objective rules of business, and not having a comparable percentage of friends and family in corporate jobs that are subsidized via limited liability?
Right wing BS.
You are not guaranteed equal opportunity under the Declaration, under Objectivism, or in a capitalist society.
Your assumptions:
corporations are suspect. There is a large group of "victims."
Labels: for supposedly an Objectivist, you pepper your comments with labels, most of which are anti-concepts. Why do you that?
Explain the term "Caucasian welfare." Are you asserting that Blacks, latinos, asians, etc. do not collect social security? Rand was specific about participation in these programs as being ethically moral, provided the individual stands against the implementation and existence of such welfare policies.
"Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .
The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration."