Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Let's not get bogged down in semantics. Freewill or volition is an inherent part of who you are. The only one who can really minimize your freewill is you since that is exactly what freewill is.
Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
The fact is whether you like her concepts or not Ayn Rand was neither conservative nor liberal. She was an atheist, and amongst other things lived a very unorthodox life.
Ayn Rand's ideas are fundamentally opposed to both conservative and liberal thought precisely because conservative and liberal thought are fundamentally identical.
Her views of capitalism do not coincide with the conservative or liberal bias form of government. Thus she was neither. Ayn Rand was an objectivist, and for us to try and mold her ideals to fit into a political party is absurd and an insult to her work.
Ayn Rand's ideas are fundamentally opposed to both conservative and liberal thought precisely because conservative and liberal thought are fundamentally identical.
Her views of capitalism do not coincide with the conservative or liberal bias form of government. Thus she was neither. Ayn Rand was an objectivist, and for us to try and mold her ideals to fit into a political party is absurd and an insult to her work.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
On an entirely entirely different slant, I can surely bet that Ayn Rand was dynamite in bed.
Was she a bombshell? Not so much. But just imagine it fully with all of her focus and rage, unrestrained by any conventional societal norms or taboos of the day. I bet she could teach me something so wonderfully and creatively depraved that isn't even in the world's most bizarre pornography.
If I had a time machine, I think the first thing I would do right before strangling Karl Marx with my bare hands would be to totally fuck Ayn Rand.
Was she a bombshell? Not so much. But just imagine it fully with all of her focus and rage, unrestrained by any conventional societal norms or taboos of the day. I bet she could teach me something so wonderfully and creatively depraved that isn't even in the world's most bizarre pornography.
If I had a time machine, I think the first thing I would do right before strangling Karl Marx with my bare hands would be to totally fuck Ayn Rand.
Badbird
Never banned
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 133
- 63
That seems false. What do you mean when you say they're fundamentally identical? It would also help if you were clear about what you mean by 'conservative' and 'liberal.'
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
^ @BB - Probably because he was a complete subjective materialist with an absolute system of thought and completely dismissed the human element!?
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
I'm not going to answer that silly question. If you must know, check the back catalog of my posts on here and joblo.
But to go along with what I was saying in my last post, isn't saying to Ayn Rand "I'm going back in time to kill Karl Marx" the only scenario where that would be the ultimate pickup line? What would make it even better would be for her to tell me, "No, let me do it". To which I'd say "Sure, after we fuck". I think watching her do the deed would be an even greater pleasure for us both.
Oh the joy.
Badbird
Never banned
By the way Karl Marx kicks ass Galt....
Nah just kidding around with you. But you were the same person who called Obama a socialist which he not at all.
Nah just kidding around with you. But you were the same person who called Obama a socialist which he not at all.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
IMO,In primary respects there is no difference between a libral or a conservative.
The terms "Left and Right," come from the British House of Commons, where the Popular(Liberal) parties have traditionally sat to the left of the speaker and the Royalist\Aristocratic Parties(Conservative) to the Right.
As you already probably know in the 20th century US, Democrats were considered the Liberal party, with an agenda of individual liberty, Civil Rights and economic policies based on promoting general prosperity.
While the Republicans pampered an authoritarian social agenda, and based their economic strategies on the promotion of Big Business interests.
In the 1960s those labesl started breaking down with socially and economically Liberal Lyndon Johnson committing the US to the Vietnam War and by the end of the Reagan-Bush Era those distinctions were pretty much gone.
Racial and class politics have become more of a factor and "pure" Liberals or Conservatives are difficult to find. Blacks and Hispanics can often be found in the ranks of social conservatives when their own groups are not involved. Many economic Conservatives are socially Liberal these days and recently social Conservatives are pushing some very Liberal Economic policies.
I beleive the days of easy labeling are gone. You have to look at each representative individually, and then on an issue by issue basis. The old adage of, "Never write anyone off," is more true than ever. Single issue coalitions have formed around leaders who would never have been seen sharing the same platform 20 years agoand it's going to get more confusing, not less.
Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 133
- 63
Well, libertarianism probably looks monolithic to a lot of outsiders, but it really is not, as you suggested here. There seems to be disagreement about what the central tenet of the doctrine should be, whether it should be a commitment to some vague non-aggression principle, or some view about property rights from which everything else follows, or whether some other kind of right is more basic, or some kind of maximizing doctrine with respect to liberty (whatever 'liberty' means). There is more agreement on what the policy implications are, but there are even debates about this too. There is a lot of disagreement about how libertarian principles are supposed to be justified. They are basically all over the map, ranging from various forms of consequentialism, Kantian deontology, Lockean natural rights theory, Aristotelian virtue ethics, contractualism (which is my own view), etc. etc. In the philosophical literature libertarianism is generally understood to be the view propounded by guys like Robert Nozick and Jan Narveson, but those two do not exhaust the possibilities obviously.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Unless everyone stopped voting.
I'd be interested in seeing the country adopt an alternative voting system (i.e. being able to vote for two options: your ideal first choice, and more pragmatic second choice). Unfortunately, this would result in us having to reorganize the entire electoral college and process by which we determine who wins.
Badbird
Never banned
Third parties should have the same chance as the two party system. If people could think more, they would vote for third parties.
Dak
mentat
Not voting is a valid option. If there is no good candidate, that doesn't mean I have to support a bad one.
You've missed the point in what I was saying (only Einherjer got it apparently). Unless everyone stopped voting, not voting is not a valid option BECAUSE it doesn't matter how much of the U.S. population votes (50%, 30%, 10% etc.), whoever is ahead in any given percentage of votes is going to win.
Der Morgenstern
Trailer Park Bacchus
Pessimism is correct in his thinking. Simply not voting because you don't like either candidate does nothing at all. It might make a difference if there was a minimum vote percentage that has to be reached for an election to be deemed valid, but nothing like that exists.
V.V.V.V.V.
Houses Ov Mercury
Dak
mentat
If both candidates are equally bad (which, imo, is the case in the major parties), then it cannot be considered un-pragmatic to not vote.
Prismatic Sphere
We Carouse
Then why give your 0.00001% of encouragement to those two parties whom you do not support if it doesn't matter and one of the major two is going to come out the winner in the first place?
Why even give one scintilla of encouragement to that which you do not agree with?
If you are really done with being part of the problem and want to be part of the solution either don't vote, vote 3rd party, or vote for a maverick.
Or write in Hugh Hefner for christ's sakes.
Why even give one scintilla of encouragement to that which you do not agree with?
If you are really done with being part of the problem and want to be part of the solution either don't vote, vote 3rd party, or vote for a maverick.
Or write in Hugh Hefner for christ's sakes.
