Galt's Gulch

What happens when the producers are taxed out of town and only the moochers are left

Posted by evlwhtguy 9 years, 9 months ago to Politics
16 comments | Share | Flag

It seems the Peoples Republic of Detroit is cutting off the water of moochers who don't pay their bills. I won’t go in to a discussion of just what the hue and cry would be if a Republican administration had done just such a thing. [You all know how it would go, 24 X 7 on all channels about those racist Republicans!] It is instructive to read the workarounds the lady in the story has to use in dealing with the water being cut off. [note nowhere in the story does it that she is no doubt still getting sewer service for free as that is typically linked to the water bill] Her story sounds just like it was lifted out of Atlas Shrugged
SOURCE URL: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-detroit-water-20140629-story.html#page=1

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 9 months ago
    The PHOTO! She's had a manicure, her hair dyed, and she's obviously not missing any meals.... perhaps what this "homeland security" student needs is to learn how to budget! And of course being a 'single Mom' is ALWAYS included in these stories. Hmmm maybe she also needs to make better decisions in her life. The REAL problem here is a lack of self responsibility, which stems from a lack of THINKING. No think, no drink! WAKE UP!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by evlwhtguy 9 years, 9 months ago
      I liked the tattoos that we could see. I betcha they worked hard to keep them out of the photos. Although I personally dislike all the tattoos we see these days, I point them out here only because they do cost money and this individual is obviously spending way too much disposable income on things like manicures, hairdos tattoos and most of all FOOD.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 9 months ago
        Yes... that was my point. Also, smart phones, big screen tvs... Apparently prioritizing is difficult when you don't have any priorities. (I heard on the news a few days ago that it's like a miracle how when the notices to shut off the water get ignored, but once it get's shut off then suddenly they money appears to pay the bill to get it back on.)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LetsShrug 9 years, 9 months ago
      Also, that homeland security schooling she's taking...I want to know more about THAT! Is the gov recruiting n'er do wells to do HS jobs??? Put them in a position of authority?? Wrap your head around THAT idea for a just a second. I smell future Nazi's being created.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Solver 9 years, 9 months ago
    If, to be given free clean drinking water is a right for every man given unto men by the forceful central planning authority of man,
    and the right to enslave as many individuals as it takes to service this right is a right,
    then a left is also a right.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by Maphesdus 9 years, 9 months ago
    Question: who qualifies as producers? Employees or employers? I say it's both, though either one could potentially become a moocher. A trend I've noticed in Objectivist thought is the idea that only employers qualify as producers, which, when you step back and look at the whole picture, doesn't seem accurate.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Solver 9 years, 9 months ago
      A basic dictionary definition:
      “a person who creates economic value, or produces goods and services.”

      An Objectivist definition:
      “the producer lives by his own effort and does not give or receive the undeserved, who honors achievement and rejects envy.”

      That means that each individual (even if they are an employee or employer) may not may not qualify.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by sdesapio 9 years, 9 months ago
      RE: "A trend I've noticed in Objectivist thought is the idea that only employers qualify as producers"
      Really? That's Interesting. Where are you noticing this? I like to think I've been paying pretty close attention for the past 20 or so years since I first read Atlas and... well... I've never once heard such a thing from any Objectivist I've ever come across or read.

      I mean... I've heard this type of the thing as an attack from the left more than once but, seeing as how it bears no resemblance to reality, I can't imagine you've heard this from anyone in our camp. Citation?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by Solver 9 years, 9 months ago
      "A trend I've noticed in Objectivist thought is the idea that only employers qualify as producers..."

      In Atlas Shrugged,
      James Taggart was an employer. Was he a producer?
      Owen Kellogg, was an employee. Was he a producer?

      Check your premises.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by evlwhtguy 9 years, 9 months ago
        James Taggart was a moocher, he was riding on the accomplishments of his fore-bearers while not increasing the original wealth they produced. Dagny was a producer because she maintained and increased the original wealth provided by her fore-bearers
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo