Atlas Shrugged
discussion
What effect did this book have on you??
Anthony wrote: "lestine, looks like you drank the koolaid"I guess I did. But not all of it. There are some aspects of her beliefs that I don't agree with, like unregulated businesses.
Lestine wrote: "Anthony wrote: "lestine, looks like you drank the koolaid"I guess I did. But not all of it. There are some aspects of her beliefs that I don't agree with, like unregulated businesses.
Oh my, Lestine..., some True Defenders of the Faith shall chastise thee for thy dalliance with heresy. How refreshing. :}
The problem with Marxism isnt the philosophy of a socialist society, though there are those that like a system of winners and losers because they either are or fantasize they will someday be in the winners circle. The problem is when any philosophy is used to grab power for the few, whether it be Rand's Capitalism or Lenin-Stalin "socialism" (which was not anymore socialist than most Christians are actually following Jesus teachings). As all wealth is created by labor, not the other way round, a system that truly empowers the labor to create a society that rewards things that benefit society instead of a few capitalists or a few party chiefs is ideal, but like most ideals has eluded mankind for the most part. if you look at quality of life factors, the blend of socialized capitalism used in most of Europe seems to be the closest thing, America, Russia, China and N Korea, as well as much of the rest of the world are clear examples of failed systems. some of them are pretty good at creating wealth, but not so good at creating a better world.
Marc wrote: "Just out of curiosity what former Communist country did you live in? In looking at the former Soviet bloc there are definitely some countries where the past is preferable. "I live in Poland and I would never say the former system was preferable for me. There is a lot of people in Poland that do say that however. But I think in most cases they just do not know what they talk about. Although there were people especially the aged for whom the new reality was very hard. Imagine yourself suddenly set free after a life in prison where you were more or less fed and clothed - and now you are old and suddenly have to fare for yourself. Your state no longer provides you with job, paycheck and a place to live.
Brian wrote: "You are steeped in ideology so reality means nothing to you. China has lifted more people out of poverty in the past 60 years than all recorded history combined. This is a direct result of the comm..."China is one of my customers in business. I can assure you, the face they show to the West is not the face they show to each other in Beijing and Changdu. You have to go there to see it for real. This attitude that capitalism has liberated China and given rise to their economic ascension is falsely attributed.
They are as deeply entrenched in socialist ideals as ever. They simply see the West as a source of income to be exploited in order to advance those ideals. Who holds the largest share of US Foreign Debt? Yes, you know. Who invests in energy in Africa, weapons trade in Africa, when others shy away? China sees profit and seizes it, in a way you correctly attribute to Randian capitalism. But is supplying weapons to both sides of a civil war just? Is it beneficial to society? Certainly not to Sudan. Is robbing them of their natural resources, as a means to extract payment for these weapons, just? It is undeniably capitalist.
But you will say, "Kenneth, you said they're not capitalist!" When there is a single political party, and that party approves or disapproves all significant business decisions, that is not capitalism. Everything domestic must be approved. All of our business with the mainland concluded each project with a visit from a party official, who had to rubber stamp every aspect of the job for 'cultural and sociopolitical rightness'.
As I wrote above, extremes are bad. Please stop defending one and demonizing another.
"They will sell us the rope we'll use to hang them."The noose will be tied by an "invisible hand".
Funny funny E.D. sadly very true
Anthony wrote: "The problem with Marxism isnt the philosophy of a socialist society, though there are those that like a system of winners and losers because they either are or fantasize they will someday be in the..."Did you actually read Atlas Shruggled in it's entirety? Rand was not against labor, or hard work at all. Quite the opposite. She was against government taken over of certain industries, rather they be copper mines, or railroads. Her father was forced to close his own business by the Russian government, and the family was left to starve. Yes, they survived, but this began her hatred of government.
There are a lot of intelligent posts, here, like Kenneth's, but again, most reflect a lack of understanding of Rand's philosophy and the story itself. Perhaps, watching some of the interviews on Youtube will shed more light. Also, remember, the book was penned in the 1950's, before the dark side of capitalism reared it's ugly head. And yes, all forms of government, like people, have two sides.
BTW, I really do love the interest in Atlas Shrugged, and a chance to add my two cents.I haven't checked the various discussions to see if there is one on Rand's other major work: The Fountainhead. I'm sure that would be another major discussion. Anyway, thanks to whomever began this post.
Well let's see, I was about half way through it then I almost died in a car accident. When I woke from the coma I vowed not to pick it back up. Probably not the effect the originator of this thread had in mind, but legitimate to me. I really liked "Anthem" though, read that years ago and again since the accident.
It made me completely rethink my admiration of Ayn Rand as an author. I'd read and enjoyed "The Fountainhead" as a teen-ager, but when I tried this one in my 20s I just couldn't believe how bad it was. The plot is absolutely ridiculous and the narrative bogged down in endless pontification. I kept thinking, "she can't be serious," but alas, she was. Having worked for the rich, 'maker' class that Ayn so admires, I have to say that it's unlikely they'd survive very long in the utopia she's created for them without all the rest of us peons to make and do for them. As I recall they resembled characters out of a Monty Python sketch more than the improbable idealizations Rand describes - these people couldn't figure out how to operate their garage door openers without help, let alone construct a perfect society on their own.
Lestine,There is indeed a GR discussion of Fountainhead you might refresh. Type and click.
I'm a tad confused by your comment about capitalism not showing it's darkside until after the 50s. Does "The Gilded Age" no longer resonate as "dark" historically? Slavery and colonialism are now capitalism's Age of Gentle My Badness? I am curious as to what you meant by "darkside"...,Wall Street, TARP,derivatives, etc..?
I really do find your less than dogmatic appreciation of Rand refreshing. :)
Lestine wrote: " the book was penned in the 1950's, before the dark side of capitalism reared it's ugly head"Not to send you off to some colonial banana republic, try reading George Orwell's books about his experiences in prewar Great Britain and France.
Read it when I was eighteen. Finished it, but hated it. Ayn Rand and her followers (oops, they don't want to be considered followers)anoint themselves as gifted and superior beings frustrated in their genius, having been condemned to live so much of their lives among mere mortals. Since I'm a mere mortal, the book was obviously not written for me. Not even good literature or writing. If you're going to read a long book I suggest War and Peace or something similar that actually accomplishes what a novel should accomplish: demonstrate the complexity and ambiguity of the human condition in a compelling way. I don't need novelists to direct me to their version of the mountaintop.
I look at this as a book of interesting and compelling ideas taking place in an alternate reality where there is no such thing as nuance. A set of virtues is established, and anyone who does not share those virtues is a thug or a moocher, neither innocent nor a victim.
According to this book, a manufacturer has no moral obligations, except to excel at manufacturing. It's an attractive ideal, but it's one that simply isn't realistic in a world where oil companies dump their product into the ocean or big banks cripple the economy and suffer barely any consequences for all the damage.
For businessmen to live by the ideals presented in this book and actually succeed... that would truly be superheroic.
According to this book, a manufacturer has no moral obligations, except to excel at manufacturing. It's an attractive ideal, but it's one that simply isn't realistic in a world where oil companies dump their product into the ocean or big banks cripple the economy and suffer barely any consequences for all the damage.
For businessmen to live by the ideals presented in this book and actually succeed... that would truly be superheroic.
David wrote: "Janice wrote: "David, that's really deep. Do you value freedom? Do you value property rights? Do you value truth? Do you think it is right that people have the right to the fruits of their labor? I..."Seriously, David. Just like Rand, lovers of this book seem to view the world in two hugely diverse extremes. There's no gray area. Either you're with us, or you're against us.
I threw it against the wall because she kept repeating her message over and over again. Also the romance bits made my stomach turn.
Midwestocean wrote: "I threw it against the wall because she kept repeating her message over and over again. Also the romance bits made my stomach turn."Best comment I've seen so far. Thanks.
I am looking forward to re-reading this one. I recall feeling that Rand offered a totally different lens from which to view the world than my college experience was offering at the time. This was not assigned reading, but a novel I picked up by happenstance.
It is funny that of all the hack writers out there that nobody cares enough to attack or defend that rand inspires fierce loyalty and fierce opposition:)
Mark wrote: "Read it when I was eighteen. Finished it, but hated it. Ayn Rand and her followers (oops, they don't want to be considered followers)anoint themselves as gifted and superior beings frustrated in th..."Excellent comment. I would recommend Les Misérables along with War and Peace.
Anthony wrote: "It is funny that of all the hack writers out there that nobody cares enough to attack or defend that rand inspires fierce loyalty and fierce opposition:)"I was one of those who "didn't care enough to attack" as long as it was only Libertarians and snot-nosed brats that professed the Faith. Then came the "Young Turk Republicans". One on the GOP ticket, even!
But when the battle cries of "moocher and taker" came wafting from Tea Party trailer parks across the nation.., well,..I started to pay attention. I can't fathom living under a Randian Theocracy.
Strangely, I prefer the old, nuanced Plutocracy without all the "pseudo-intellectual" bulldookie on top. If you're going to screw me, we can skip the "principled" pillow-talk. :}
Anthony wrote: "It is funny that of all the hack writers out there that nobody cares enough to attack or defend that rand inspires fierce loyalty and fierce opposition:)"I wouldn't have cared enough to drop a single word about this book. I would've just forgotten about it as another utopia/dystopia completely devoid of any relevance to reality. I would have, had I not spotted so many people apparently taking these ideas seriously and convinced there is actually some merit to this pseudo-philosophy. I just cannot fathom it and that keeps me interested.
Same here. My only interest in it is to dispel it along with the other pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy cobwebs. Do I care what other people think on principle? No. I'm self-centered. I don't care what all of you read. More power to you.
Do I care what other people think because they're potential voters or office-holders? Emphatically yes. I can't in good conscience allow disinformation to thrive and claw its way into a position of real authority in the non-fictional world.
I'm one of those who when I read Atlas Shrugged was deeply touched. Aside from the romance part (which I agree was bizarre) the rest resonated with my experience and personal beliefs. Maybe this stems from being self-employed my entire life and my few less than positive encounters with government. Does business have a social cost? No doubt, but government and crony capitalism also carry a cost that is overlooked or forgiven by many. Wealth can be created or destroyed, but it cannot just be ordered to appear. The article below is a nice current example of government that could well within the confines of Atlas Shrugged.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/S...
That's great Marc, but you forgive one evil system and condemn another. Isn't that the same?
Hi Kenneth,I'm sure neither of supports crony capitalism, so that leaves government and I suspect the difference there lies in the size and power of a government.
Taken to extremes I deem an unfettered private sector more benevolent than an all powerful government. Government without limits has produced the Holocaust, the internment of Japanese American during WWII, Siberian death camps, countless famines around the world, and has played a direct hand in every human rights catastrophe in history.
While the private sector does and has committed actions for which they should be held accountable, only government can take these offenses to the level where they become statistics. Governments are also almost immune to being held accountable.
Union Carbide Corporation killed nearly 4,000 people in India with an accidental gas leak, those responsible received prison time and fines. Care to guess what kind of justice will be delivered in the case of the deliberate gassing of civilians in Syria?
Microsoft doesn't have a license to kill you, depending on where you live either your state or national government does. Government is composed of many very decent men and women, but even the best amongst us are capable of deplorable actions. Thus the best personal security is a small government with limited powers.
Marc, as we've discussed before, governments CAN be changed. Power CAN be limited. In dictatorships by revolution. In democracies by elections. This idea that "the state" is like a fungus that just appears out of thin air and begins to kill whimsically and steal private property at will is........(okay,..I'm wanting to be diplomatic because I like discussing this with you)....."unreasonable". Are there governmental abuses? YES! Are there capitalist abuses? YES! I am "the state". You are "the state". WE ARE "THE STATE"!
For those interested, I invite you to join a moderated discussion group on Rand's ideas.The blurb: A group to discuss Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism in a critical, yet respectful way. Discussion is not limited to what Rand wrote. In addition to your own thinking, feel free to introduce any Objectivist critiques, Objectivist scholarship, or any libertarian thought.
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
Marc wrote: "Hi Kenneth,I'm sure neither of supports crony capitalism, so that leaves government and I suspect the difference there lies in the size and power of a government.
Taken to extremes I deem an un..."
Ah, but Marc: Governments end at their borders, while corporations are sometimes multi-national. While governments can wage war on other nations, Corporations are always doing it - and without the usual attention of the world stage. It's not a war of explosions and gas chambers, but of starvation, exploitation, raping of natural resources and pollution of the environment. A silent, brazenly public, but ignored war.
No one has a license to kill you. Governments will exploit you, and so will corporations. Neither is superior to the other - both are composed of groups of people with a common interest in mind, and that interest is typically self-gain. They might be Rand fans.
Walter: Moderated? Given the subject matter, that's pretty ironic.
Marc wrote: "Union Carbide Corporation killed nearly 4,000 people in India with an accidental gas leak, those responsible received prison time and fines."You really need to do some fact checking before using examples like that. The main responsible was flown out of India after the disaster and was never punished. The ones that were punished were punished only after over two decades of public outcry. They received laughable fines (Keshub Mahindra who is worth over half a billion USD got fined around 2000 USD) and measly 2 years in prison - and they didn't serve the time so far.
Marc wrote: "Microsoft doesn't have a license to kill you"
Corporations do not need "a license to kill" because they have control over governments powerful enough that they can do the killing for them, if necessary.
Make the governments small and powerless and you will quickly learn how easy it is to transfer power to corporations.
Incidentally, if you believe corporations don't have a prerogative to kill you, you should had taken a trip to Baghdad several years ago and try refusing to stop at Blackwater's checkpoint.
For the record I like government; as I like nice roads, libraries, police that respond when I call, and parks. Ed is correct the monster state does not just spring out of thin air, rather it grows over time. Would anyone here deny that within government different agencies have a flavor or culture? Just as changing the direction of a large company is nearly impossible (they usually go broke)so is changing the culture of a government agency (except they don't go broke). I recall the lines told a young congressman who was intent upon changing the world while having his first meeting with the head of a large government agency, "I was here before you and I will still be here after you."
There comes a point where government becomes an entity large enough to advance and protect it's own interests. Look at the growth of the government employee unions. The interests of the public and those operating the government are not always aligned.
National security is very good example of this. Is there any downside for government if an extensive and intrusive national security policy is implemented? It means more jobs and lessens the chances of an adverse event occurring which in turn makes their positions even more secure.
As for the difference between UCC in India and the government in Syria. I won't argue the outcome in India was appropriate but it's far closer to justice than what we are ever likely to see in Syria.
A corporation harms me I can go to my government and ask for my grievances be addressed. My government harms me (imposing the death penalty in a haphazard manner) and my options for appeal are quite limited.
You can go to your government and they will politely ignore your grievances because their campaigns are funded by the defendants. You could interchange "corporation" and "government" in your post, and the facts would be the same.
Essentially, where Rand's philosophy falls down is where it differentiates between the two and rules in favor of one - ad extrema, over the other. Both are the source of beneficial services (such as the internet, cell phones, ambulances, medical plastics; fire services, police, infrastructure). I will not mention "security" because it is largely an illusion and an excuse for governments and the corporations that work for them to make a great deal of money against the public interest and in use of public taxes. Of course, all of these beneficial services also come with negatives: Spying on citizens, erosion of privacy rights, monopolizing markets, predatory lending practices, extortionate medical charges, jingoism, promotion of consumerism and disinformation spread through media conglomerates, anti-intellectualism... I could go on and on. Is it the government that is evil? Is it corporations? Is it neither?
Both can be good, and both can be bad. What is good and bad is a matter of degree, and a matter of trust the public is willing to assign to each. Extremist views like Rand's or Stalin's should not be promoted. A bit of capitalism, a bit of socialism, a bit of libertarianism, and a bit of plutocracy. Moderation allows for diversity and balance, while extremist views harbor only divergent outcomes for public welfare.
"You can go to your government and they will politely ignore your grievances because their campaigns are funded by the defendants."Which is a main reason (though not only reason) why libertarians believe in limiting the powers of government. The potential for power to be misused is too great, even for people with the best of intentions. By limiting the power, we limit the abuse. Here, I think, libertarians understand all too well one aspect of human psychology: That certain people (e.g., narcissists and psychopaths) have incredibly strong motives for power.
As to the "extremist" charge, I think this is a weak basis for a criticism. Why do I think that? Political philosophies are governed by principles, by central guiding ideas that make certain assumptions and conclusions about human behavior, ethics, and social organization. To criticize political ideas as "extremist" fails to address these underlying issues. Libertarian or socialist conclusions can be criticized for sure, but the term extremist I believe tells us little about what psychological, ethical, and social-organizational ideas that underlie the politics, and why these ideas might be flawed.
I welcome in-depth discussion, and critiques(!) of Rand's ideas, in a group I set up. My golden rule is that I just ask for respectful dialogue.
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
I'm not joining any moderated (read censored) discussion. You can limit government powers. That limits governments abilities to abuse power, perhaps. But it opens the door for corporations to do so instead. There is no utopian solution to real world problems, and that is why Rand's philosophy is extremist. Surely you feel that there are political extremist groups out there? And what drives them to think the way they do?
Or do we have to have that discussion?
Walter, I knocked on the door to your group, although I must agree that Kenneth has a point, since when do Libertarians need to isolate themselves?
Kenneth,
No doubt extremism can be damaging but not always. I look at the Farm Bill that just passed, a one trillion dollar example of the price of bipartisanship. The checks and balances our government started out with are steadily being dismantled.
Gerrymandering has resulted in more extreme candidates on both sides, lessened the chances of unseating a office holder, and further centralized power. Allowing for the direct election of Senators has probably decreased the level of involvement in local politics as these elected officials were once who has held responsible for the votes taken by a Senator since they selected the Senators. The call to eliminate the Electoral College continues to grow although it's role is to moderate candidates and provide minority populations with a greater voice. All of these are far less than positive trends and cannot be attributed to private industry, rather government consolidating power to protect it's own interests.
I agree with you on the illusion of security but no matter what party is in power we continue to lose our freedoms. From Bush creating the TSA (thousands standing around)to Obama and the ACA (another crappy idea). Not to be overly vulgar but if the IRS can be used for political purposes, care to guess what could be leaked from your private health records if the need arose (number of abortions, number of venereal diseases, etc...).
Suing the government for damages or wrong doing is largely a fruitless task as you taking on the worlds largest and richest law firm.
Hey, Walter!Good to see you out of the bunker and interacting with others. Hope you've been well. :}
Perhaps, you might join in our discussion here regarding the state as a mechanism to collectively balance the rights of individuals in regards to each other as a practical matter? Perhaps, you could put into the mix a Randian view of how society should deal with a diversity of political thinking.
Colorful language is acceptable, and encouraged. :}
I just remembered this article, pretty well sums up the Libertarian mind and illustrates how Rand was indeed rare. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/S...
Marc wrote: "I just remembered this article, pretty well sums up the Libertarian mind and illustrates how Rand was indeed rare. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/S..."
Hi Marc,
Interesting article (say, buddy..you callin' me a "girly-boy"?), thanks. :}
Regarding your post above and government consolidating power:
Gerrymandering in my home-state has resulted in a GOP legislature and majority GOP membership of the HOR (one, swings the gavel). However, as evidenced by Karl Rove's election night hissyfit, the Senate and Presidential victories went to the Democratic candidates despite the tens of millions of dollars imported to defeat them. My point? The total number of Democratic voters is greater than the GOP's. Private interest money is highly active in one side's attempt to consolidate control. Demographics (people's interests) is behind the other's. If Senators were appointed by state legislators, money would matter..not the people.
So, it is safe to say that private interests are deeply involved in all the consolidating efforts you mentioned. To explore their efforts on a State level (where it all begins) check out an organization named ALEC.
Walter wrote: ""You can go to your government and they will politely ignore your grievances because their campaigns are funded by the defendants."Which is a main reason (though not only reason) why libertarians..."
Two points:
1. I do think it is valid to criticize something as extremist (assuming it's accurate). And extremist view is likely to be one that addresses only a very narrow portion of the full range of relevant issues, or to see things in very rigid terms. The world is a complex place and failure to come to grips with that through a focus on a tiny slice of it is, in my opinion, a valid critique.
2. I don't buy into potential abuse of government power as a basis for the libertarian view of minimal government. Power is power and it's there as part of our experience on planet earth. There's power in nature. There's power in the animal kingdom. There's power in the human realm. And in all cases, power has the potential to be constructive, destructive, or probably more often, a combination of both. None of that has anything to do with the presence or absence of human government or the structure of any government that might exist. As things turned out, governments arose to hopefully get some sort of rational handle on the distribution and exercise of power. I know of know government that's perfect. But the absence of government might be worse. Then, the stronger (however one defines that) have absolute power over all others and face no consequences for "abuse" of that power. Power exists. It always existed. It always will exist. The issues are how comfortable we are acknowledging and addressing it.
Hi E.D.Hillary has more testosterone than most liberals or even libertarians for that matter, I personally think she's a closet Rand fan and will wait till her second term to come out, look out male interns.
Back to the Senators being appointed by state legislators, I'm not seeing how this would make it easier for money to matter. In the case of California instead of one big race with the majority of the money being spent in five or six markets, there would be 120 races that mattered. As Democrats still hold the majority the new Senator would still be a Democrat but it would likely be a moderate Democrat. The same holds true for Republican states. It seems likely to me that extremists on either side would be less likely to prevail.
I also wouldn't be surprised if this resulted in a lot more turnover. Personally I like the idea of asking my state representative whether or not she will support Senator X's bid for re-election after his second DUI. It's all part of making national matters local and local opinions matter.
Hi Marc, Not a letter to myself. I can accept your first principle, the world is indeed complex and the simple answer championed by the single issue candidate is often deeply flawed.
On the second principle, if Libertarians aren't concerned about the power of government, then who are they worried about. I suspect you will not find many libertarians in Somalia or Afghanistan. I would argue a libertarian has more faith in the decency and restraint of his fellow man as an individual than most. Rather his/her primary concern is the actions of the faceless collective.
I like to compare the level of government required to the workplace. I've always been a strong proponent of the theory she who bosses the least is the best boss. However in some workplaces and with some workforces that may not be ideal. So who's at fault, the environment in the workplace or the aptitude of the workforce?
Walter wrote: "The potential for power to be misused is too great, even for people with the best of intentions. By limiting the power, we limit the abuse.So, how do you propose to limit corporate power when we have a limited government and a fully fledged lassez-faire economy?
Walter wrote: "Here, I think, libertarians understand all too well one aspect of human psychology: That certain people (e.g., narcissists and psychopaths) have incredibly strong motives for power."
I think most people with half a brain understand it ;)
Again, how do you plan to stop those people from migrating from weak government to powerful business?
How come you think corporate power will be less corrupted than political power?
Marc wrote: "Kenneth,
No doubt extremism can be damaging..."
I'm with you on all this, Marc.
Giansar: exactly.
Hi Marc (you know who you are),My state is Ohio. Imported special interest money has been at work here for a long time. We are, as they say, a "swing state". I guess my point was to say that the trends you mentioned about political power usurpation currently being pushed are being supported (and heavily directed) by "private" interests. Therefore, if Senators were appointed Ohio would have two who fit the requirements of those "private" interests..as opposed to the wishes of the majority of her citizens. Like Watergate.."follow da money".
Also, I'm tickled by Libertarians having faith in an individual's restraint, but thinking the worst of them when they freely associate with other individuals. :}
Giansar,
Perfectly put.
It's the reason why I don't fear the courts as much as I fear the mob. In the case of Ohio if I remember correctly a moderate Republican was beaten by an far less moderate candidate who then went on to crash and burn. Not exactly a case of outside money driving the process, perhaps rather the results of a closed primary?
The reason why a corrupt or ruthless government is more dangerous than a corrupt or ruthless private industry is the reach of their power. If I don't like Cokes practice of capturing Polar Bears so they can film commercials, I can stop buying Coke products and hurt their finances and ability to create such commercials. If I don't my governments habit of dropping bombs on little brown people all over the world like its rain, I can protest and I can vote but I still have to pay for those bombs. The State has an ability to coerce my support for whatever action it decides is best. There has been a very steady expansion of the areas where the State know best, we have long since moved beyond police and firefighters.
I've often mentioned Scalia and "mob" in the same sentence.., but that's a different story. :}Here in Ohio, all power rests in the legislature...and is the main focus of "private" interests. Again, check out ALEC and Rove/Koch, et al . At least, it's nice to live in a State that "requires" a full-out attempt at corruption. It forces the rats into the open, and brings in much needed spending. (Our local broadcasters make a killing!)
The power of government's reach is being purchased by private interests. (Who makes those bombs? ) The only thing limiting the damage they do is the few individuals elected who oppose them by using the power of government to block them. How does making that more difficult by limiting (or eliminating) their options stop this?
If private interests corrupt the system as it is...how does weakening it (as Giansar pointed out above) fix that?
Ooopps! Forgot to address the Senate race.Yep. "Little Joshy", as I like to call him...did win the primary. Then lost to the most liberal of Senators..Sherrod Brown. By a huge margin.
Despite the $31 + million brought in from out of state by Rove's Pac and "non-profit" billionaires. Apparently, in an election when every vote counted, the people wanted Brown.
Had the seat been the choice of a well-entrenched, privately funded, gerrymandered, protected legislature..."Little Joshy" would be in Washington doing the bidding of his masters. Instead, Brown shoots them the finger. I prefer direct election of Senators. This past election strengthened that preference.
So, perhaps we see in this instance demographics defeating "private interest" in a fair fight. Regardless, Rove's melt-down...priceless. :}
Kenneth wrote: "I'm not joining any moderated (read censored) discussion."Kenneth, I have tried to hold discussions in Goodreads without moderation and inevitably encounter people who are rude, abusive, and so forth. Moderation does involve a certain kind of censorship: I censor people who are disrespectful. Disagreements are welcome.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Six Pillars of Self-Esteem (other topics)
Honoring the Self: Self-Esteem and Personal Transformation (other topics)
The 10000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (other topics)
The 10000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence (other topics)Six Pillars of Self-Esteem (other topics)
Honoring the Self: Self-Esteem and Personal Transformation (other topics)
The 10000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (other topics)
The 10000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution (other topics)
More...
Just out of curiosity what former Communist country did you live in? In looking at the former Soviet bloc there are definitely some countries where the past is preferable. In those cases the problem seems less what the free market has wrought but rather crony capitalism that people have come believe represents the free market and capitalism.
Marc