It's Coming...

Movies, TV and Entertainment
You don't live in a Vacuum, your actions effect others, you live in a society. Taxes are something each individual pays due to being a part, so that we can help each other and they help us. The roads you use, the schools our children go to....Also taxes help out those that aren't as fortunate as Ayn Rand and yourself. Pays for schools, firefighters, people to not die in hospitals.

When you actually look into patterns that arise specifically based on region and demographic, you learn that people are products of their environments, and that product usually isn't very good unless it's upbringing and genetics favor it. In other words, George bush didn't become president because he worked hard. So we should definitely help those that aren't as lucky due to them being in unfortunate circumstances.

Income tax is slavery....god....This is why people don't take Ayn Rand or her cult followers seriously.


You had a valid point (even if I don't agree with it) until you turned around with a strawman with that last sentence...

I'm not saying taxes are bad, I'm saying income taxes are bad. Original income tax was a temporary measure to pay for a war at the time, and was meant to be concluded after the war was; it was never concluded.

Governments need money to operate, and all the services you listed are vital parts of that. The problem is, that payment shouldn't come as a result of a tax on your income. Sales taxes, property taxes, and a variety of other reasonable taxes can all, with proper management, provide for those services.

As for those who aren't "as fortunate"... that's a bucket with a lot of actual smaller buckets in it. The one who's "less fortunate" because of an injury? Help them til they're healed. The one who's "less fortunate" because they lost a job? If they can't find another job in their preferred field, they find another field. It isn't society's job to take care of those who don't put forth the effort to take care of themselves.

If, however, individuals choose to use their own funds to help others, that's fine. It shouldn't, however, be a government mandate. You are not your brother's keeper, nor am I. I work for my money, it should be mine to dispose of, in its entirety, as I choose.
Ayn Rand was simply a promoter of private property rights.

Socialists, communists, and liberals/progressives can all be lumped together under a term called statism. Statists reject the concept of private property rights. They reject all forms of private ownership for that matter and believe all private property belongs to government by default. Since all income, property owned, and material possessions an individual can have belongs to the state, then there is no limit to the rates at which government can tax income to forcefully confiscate private property and redistribute it to others through welfare state benefits such as welfare, food stamps, disability, low-income housing subsidies, cash for Sandra Fluke's birth control pills and !@#$%^l diaphragms, etc.

The way government confiscates private property in the US is through an income tax which is used to fund welfare programs. There is no Constitutional basis for welfarism. There is nothing in the Constitution that empowers the federal government to redistribute income. Which is why I've always felt public assistance as well as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all unconstitutional programs. It doesn't really matter anymore anyways since the vast majority of what the federal government does these days is unconstitutional. We've been on the path toward being the bankrupted welfare state we are today since the New Deal.

The fundamental question is whether the individual's income is private property or communal property. Private property, whether it be earned from employment, profits from investments, or inheritence - any of the ways in which we as individuals are allowed to acquire and possess property - is not communal property, it is private property. There is fundamentally no difference between communism and those who view income as communal property that can be redistributed to the poor. We cannot say we are a society that recognizes property rights if we also say government can/should tax income and give it to others. Taxing income to fund welfare programs is not funding government, it is redistribution of wealth.

Redistribution of income is not charity, it is theft.

Income is not communal property. It is private property. The government has no right to take from those who have and give to those who want.


You don't live in a Vacuum, your actions effect others, you live in a society.


This is how liberals talk in code when they're really promoting collectivism and state controlled socialism. Just because we live in a civil society does not mean I have to work for a living while a bunch of freeloading deadbeats get to sit at home and collect disability and welfare checks because they are too lazy to work for a living.

Taxes are something each individual pays due to being a part, so that we can help each other and they help us. The roads you use, the schools our children go to....Also taxes help out those that aren't as fortunate as Ayn Rand and yourself. Pays for schools, firefighters, people to not die in hospitals.

When you actually look into patterns that arise specifically based on region and demographic, you learn that people are products of their environments, and that product usually isn't very good unless it's upbringing and genetics favor it. In other words, George bush didn't become president because he worked hard. So we should definitely help those that aren't as lucky due to them being in unfortunate circumstances.

Income tax is slavery....god....This is why people don't take Ayn Rand or her cult followers seriously.


There is a fundamental difference between taxation and redistribution of wealth. Taxing income to fund public services and public infrastructure is acceptable because everyone in society benefits.

Taxing income to fund welfare programs is not taxation, it is redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of wealth, i.e. taxing income to redistribute it to the poor and the underprivileged, is not charity, it is theft. Since government is taking from those who have and giving to those who want.

Income is private property, not communal property. Having a centralized, top-down, authoritarian federal government that confiscates property for purposes of rationing or redistribution at the behest of autocrats is just another form of totalitarianism. There is no bigger infringement on personal freedom than having government seize what you work hard for and giving it to someone who is poor simply because some politician thinks they are more deserving of having your money than you are.

Especially since welfare programs have nothing to do with compassion or helping the poor, they're simply programs Democrats use to buy votes and to bribe people into supporting the Democratic Party. More people on welfare and food stamps means Democrats can enjoy expanded left-wing voting constituencies. Which is why Democrats like Obama are relentless in their efforts to expand entitlement programs and implement new ones. It's about creating a permanent underclass of freeloaders dependent on the state that will in-turn perpetually support Democratic candidates.

Don't believe me? Just watch the 1998 tape of Obama talking about rallying welfare recipients in Chicago to build an electoral majority in the city.

The US's entire welfare state resolves around stealing money from the working young and redistributing it to the retired elderly via Social Security and Medicare benefits. How is this fair? What gives the elderly the right to live off those who are still working simply because they got to age 65 and never saved any money?

There's nothing wrong with being atheist.


I would argue otherwise. Atheists have no moral compass.
@Ragefang - kudos on being outspoken. Objectivism is not an ideology one stumbles upon absent mindedly. It takes tremendous thought, consideration and deep philosophical reflection to understand the underpinning concepts of the epistemology and extraordinary personal accountability to adopt a life that reflects its values.

Detractors of Objectivism usually are unwilling even to read a single work of Rand in it's entirety, much less research it with any intellectual depth to merit a value-adding opinion. Not to mention that most in this audience likely worship the woefully unimaginative socialist dogmas of the present.

@Pürity - your correction, comments and analysis are very elegant. Well said - ! It's too bad there won't be more readers to appreciate it here. As for your opinion on Atheists having no 'moral compass', I would be interested in hearing your basis for such an argument. Are you suggesting that the existence of moral values requires belief in a deity? Or are you speaking from your own experience / religious tenants?

EDIT: On a sidenote to any other Libertarians reading this thread - I've been looking for a guild (regardless of realm) of like minded (libertarians / objectivist) community to play with - not just pot-smoking Ron Paul band-wagoneers, but people who appreciate the finer points of classic Austrian Economics, etc - if you know of any, plz let me know!! :)
10/01/2012 08:39 AMPosted by Taluun
pro-abortion.


Pretty much no one is pro-abortion..


Really?

http://boyculture.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c2ca253ef017d3c36883c970c-400wi

Socialists, communists, and liberals/progressives can all be lumped together


This is where I stopped reading. I do not appreciate my beliefs being lumped in with communism, which in my mind is as evil as capitalism. Either system, pure commuism or pure capitalism, benefits a select few. I've always viewed a social democracy (a mixed economy of socialism and capitalism) as the only system that would benefit people as a whole..

Socialists, communists, and liberals/progressives can all be lumped together


This is where I stopped reading. I do not appreciate my beliefs being lumped in with communism, which in my mind is as evil as capitalism. Either system, pure commuism or pure capitalism, benefits a select few. I've always viewed a social democracy (a mixed economy of socialism and capitalism) as the only system that would benefit people as a whole..


What is this socialist-capitalist hybrid about? With a social democracy I get to live freely 50 percent of the time and the rest of the time I live under a totalitarian state that takes what I work for and gives it to someone else?

We either live under a civil society which advances the cause of liberty or we don't. There is no mixture. Liberty and socialism are oil and water. They cannot be compromised with each other.

Edit: Your argument that capitalism only benefits a select few is the exact argument Marx and Engels made to attack it in the Communist Manifesto. You're a communist. Why do we need to tip toe around it?

Edit: Your argument that capitalism only benefits a select few is the exact argument Marx and Engels made to attack it in the Communist Manifesto. You're a communist. Why do we need to tip toe around it?


Do you deny that capitalism benefits a select few? Are you proud of the monopolies, the (failed)so-called "trickle-down" policies, outsourcing, mass unemployment and inequity that results from capitalism? Are you happy that luck can determine a person's quality of life? There are many, many people in this world who work themselves to the bone day-in and day-out, but barely manage to survive. On the other hand, there are those who become hugely successful because they were born with the magic three elements (luck, good social skills, and hard work).

Edit: Your argument that capitalism only benefits a select few is the exact argument Marx and Engels made to attack it in the Communist Manifesto. You're a communist. Why do we need to tip toe around it?


Do you deny that capitalism benefits a select few? Are you proud of the monopolies, the (failed)so-called "trickle-down" policies, outsourcing, mass unemployment and inequity that results from capitalism? Are you happy that luck can determine a person's quality of life? There are many, many people in this world who work themselves to the bone day-in and day-out, but barely manage to survive. On the other hand, there are those who become hugely successful because they were born with the magic three elements (luck, good social skills, and hard work).


Everyone benefits from capitalism. There is more opportunity for upward mobility with unregulated free markets than any other economic model. Some may become wealthy and earn millions per year while others may earn only $50,000 annually. Income inequality is a perfectly acceptable and natural byproduct of liberty and free enterprise.

As for those who are low income, compensation is determined by your skills and your education. Those who bring value to their employer and are difficult to replace will earn more than someone who is a high school drop out or someone who works low-skill jobs. Most start out working low paying work but eventually acquire additional education, skills and experience that eventually lead to higher compensation in the future. Take me, for example. My first job around 12 years ago was a retail job where I earned $6 an hour. Last year, I earned $70,000. A capitalist success story and I'm not rich. Upward mobility is not possible without liberty and free enterprise.

Lastly, monopolies are a result of excessive government regulation. You can't have monopolies in unregulated free markets because companies have to compete with others. Monopolies happen when big companies get in bed with the government and lobby to create new barriers and regulations to the detriment of smaller competitors. You seem to be confusing left-wing cronyism with capitalism. The two are mutually exclusive. The current economic milieu in the US cannot be described as capitalism. Under the Obama administration's failed stimulus and cronyism, we've seen economic policies more reminiscent of Soviet-style central planning as opposed to free market capitalism.

Compare the standard of living for the very poor in the US versus the very poor in communist North Korea. Not even close, bud. Which country built a thriving economy on collectivism and state controlled socialism?
Anyone else's troll sensor going off with purity?

The picture he linked I think is the best example of it.
i think we have enough to talk about this thread today, its now becoming a nonsense arguement about how "society works"
I suppose some degree of political discussion on this was inevitable since the movie by its very nature is heavily political.

But I'd like to point out that I did start the thread to talk about the movie. ;)
But I'd like to point out that I did start the thread to talk about the movie. ;)


I will gladly check out the movie if i can find someone else who wants to see it, but i doubt thats happening lol.
It's here, today! Head to your theaters and watch it!
0% on Rotten Tomatoes. Good grief. Oh, but I'm sure those critics just disagree with "the message"....
Wee
Adam Smith > Ayn Rand. 'nuff said.
Karl Marx > all
09/28/2012 10:22 PMPosted by Cowbacca
Her attitude was basically "I am all that is important; every man for himself." This was reflected in the fact that she was an atheist and pro-abortion.

Lol, because all people who are atheist and pro-choice think they are the most important thing ever.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum