Chomsky vs Ayn Rand ?

[andy1033]

The problem with Rand's extreme individualism is that humans are social beings by nature. People seldom think of themselves as islands...without any relations that share a mutual altruism.

I do, but i admit very rarely do people not interact with others. People it seems need to be part of stuff for the most part.

But i would think that a minority of humans do see themselves as islands in effect.

 

[Dinosaur]

Electric Fetus:I posted the following with some cogent arguments supporting the claim.

Does anyone posting here realize that from circa 1750 to circa 1910, the USA & I suppose Western Europe was essentially a laissez faire system?

You responded with the following.

So? Most of that time was filled with slavery, child welfare, no worker rights... what is your point? What you need to do is ask the causes of something not what it correlates with, for example that period as well as up tell now has been filled with experiential technological improvements.

I could very well assume that is the cause of high living standards and social progress, not laissez faire capitalism. The cotton gin, wheat thrasher, tractors, ammonia fertilizer, high yield intensive breed corps, these things allowed the American worker to move from the farm to the factory and increase their standard of living. Without those technologies no economic system imaginable could have moved even a simple majority of people out of agriculture and spending most of their time simply trying to make food to survive.

In 1800 we had 70% of the work force (including slaves) in agriculture, today its 2%, no economic system made that transition possible, all the different economic systems that had come before over the eons cause no change in the ratio of workers need per mass of food only technology did that, and only technology allows us to even contemplate and argue about different economic systems today, if not we would still be stuck in dark age feudalism.

You seem to have little knowledge/concept of history.

First: In the period I mentioned (1750 to circa 1910), there was no slavery in the industrial North & it ended in the South prior to 1870).

Child labor has almost always been due to low productivity preventing parents from being able to provide for their families (Remember until modern times, there was no effective means of birth control).

In recent modern times, various activists campaigned against companies using products produced overseas by child labor. One particular example was ornate rugs, well suited to child labor. When the activism cut down drastically on the number sold, isome of the children in doing such work were sold into sexual slavery in order to support the rest of the family.

Your remarks about technology & machinery being responsible for shifting us into an industrial culture is quite true, but in this context, it is silly. It was capital investment that provided the means for designing & producing such technology.​

BTW: In thousands of years of our history, no religion argued against slavery, excepts perhaps for the Quakers. It was the switch from an agricultural economy to an industrial one that ended slavery in the North. As a wise person once said, slavery is incompatible with a technological culture (paraphrase, not an exact quote)

The man with the whip can tell if a ditch digger or an agricultural worker is dogging it & apply the whip. He cannot tell when an engineer is thinking.

 

[ElectricFetus]

You seem to have little knowledge/concept of history.

​

Slander

First: In the period I mentioned (1750 to circa 1910), there was no slavery in the industrial North & it ended in the South prior to 1870).

So what about the north? It was in the south, through most of that time period. There was slavery through most of that time in north america, factual statement.

Child labor has almost always been due to low productivity preventing parents from being able to provide for their families (Remember until modern times, there was no effective means of birth control).

First of all prove that was the cause. Second: why do you think production was so low? do you think they had the machines we do for high production back then?

In recent modern times, various activists campaigned against companies using products produced overseas by child labor. One particular example was ornate rugs, well suited to child labor. When the activism cut down drastically on the number sold, isome of the children in doing such work were sold into sexual slavery in order to support the rest of the family.

So what your saying is we should support child labor?

Your remarks about technology & machinery being responsible for shifting us into an industrial culture is quite true, but in this context, it is silly. It was capital investment that provided the means for designing & producing such technology.

It was technology to begin with that made any capital investment possible, without which we would still be in the stone age. Yes capital investment, beget more technology and it produce an exponential feed back, but without technological discoveries further progress is not possible.

BTW: In thousands of years of our history, no religion argued against slavery, excepts perhaps for the Quakers. It was the switch from an agricultural economy to an industrial one that ended slavery in the North. As a wise person once said, slavery is incompatible with a technological culture (paraphrase, not an exact quote)

First off: religion? what that got to do with the price of cheese? Second: industrial technology did away with the slave, not free-market capitalism.

 

[The Marquis]

I was going to write a rather lengthy reply to this thread addressing each point, but decided against it.

Instead, I'll offer only the following:

electricfetus, you are arguing as if an economic system is responsible for a moral understanding. It is not. The two have little to do with each other. Slavery, workers rights, and other moral questions and practices of decades ago and today have absolutely nothing to do with an economic system other than defining a relative moral framework in which it might operate.
You even have the gall to dismiss an argument presented by someone else regarding beliefs of the time (religious, specifically) as being irrelevant to the topic. You are a hypocrite, considering the above.

Not only that, but it's quite clear that if you did read Rand, you didn't understand a damned thing she wrote. Reading someone with a prejudicial frame of mind is not understanding, and it will not ever lead to it.
I find it illuminating, you referring to the "fat cats" resulting from today's economic ventures in the USA. They were the main adversarial characters in her books - an example being that of Ellsworth Toohey, a man who grew rich and wealthy off the backs of the work of others, who is presented as the mortal enemy of Reardon, and yet you fail to even notice his existence, or that in himself he is the embodiment of one of the things you claim Rand supports.

Don't try to claim you understood what you were reading. You demonstrate with nearly every word you do not.



Rand is not my favourite philosopher. In fact, I'd hardly qualify her as one at all. She did say some things which impressed a 14 year old mind, but little beyond that other than open a young mind to other ways of thinking, which led to further philosophical meanderings. I'm not a Randite, not even close.
I simply hate to see pseudo intellectuals without a modicum of understanding, slamming something they demonstrate clearly they know nothing about. One might at least see, in a thread concerning Rand, some discussion surrounding the merits of the statement "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" but you? No. You vomit diatribes on slavery and evil rich people.
I'm going to hazard a guess here, and say that you don't even remember reading those words in "Atlas Shrugged". A guess only, of course, as neither of us will ever be able to prove it one way or another.



And lastly, I actually don't mind reading Chomsky at all. He is what I'd refer to as a dear enemy, someone who actually does copius amounts of research into, and understands, his adversary's viewpoint. (Well... for the most part). Chomsky's opinions have value to me, and I am of what might be considered a diametrically opposed viewpoint, in many ways.

You, sunshine, don't even come close. You've not displayed a single coherent argument as to why Rand is wrong, instead choosing to reiterate over and over simply that she's bad, she's ugly, and she supported a system which somehow (and I haven't quite figured out how yet) leads to slavery. Or something. I have to ask... what is it that leads you here, to post, and to think that your demonstratively uninformed opinion is of any value to anyone at all?

Oh, and iceaura is there there too. Could do the same thing with him, but I think I'll just sum it up thusly:

iceAura: Ihatecapitalism and aynrandisacapitalistso allofthethingsihate mustbewhatshesupports andnoihaventreadthebookeither butiwatchedsomethingonyoutubeaboutherthisonetime.

 

[quinnsong]

I was going to write a rather lengthy reply to this thread addressing each point, but decided against it.

Instead, I'll offer only the following:

electricfetus, you are arguing as if an economic system is responsible for a moral understanding. It is not. The two have little to do with each other. Slavery, workers rights, and other moral questions and practices of decades ago and today have absolutely nothing to do with an economic system other than defining a relative moral framework in which it might operate.
You even have the gall to dismiss an argument presented by someone else regarding beliefs of the time (religious, specifically) as being irrelevant to the topic. You are a hypocrite, considering the above.

Not only that, but it's quite clear that if you did read Rand, you didn't understand a damned thing she wrote. Reading someone with a prejudicial frame of mind is not understanding, and it will not ever lead to it.
I find it illuminating, you referring to the "fat cats" resulting from today's economic ventures in the USA. They were the main adversarial characters in her books - an example being that of Ellsworth Toohey, a man who grew rich and wealthy off the backs of the work of others, who is presented as the mortal enemy of Reardon, and yet you fail to even notice his existence, or that in himself he is the embodiment of one of the things you claim Rand supports.

Don't try to claim you understood what you were reading. You demonstrate with nearly every word you do not.



Rand is not my favourite philosopher. In fact, I'd hardly qualify her as one at all. She did say some things which impressed a 14 year old mind, but little beyond that other than open a young mind to other ways of thinking, which led to further philosophical meanderings. I'm not a Randite, not even close.
I simply hate to see pseudo intellectuals without a modicum of understanding, slamming something they demonstrate clearly they know nothing about. One might at least see, in a thread concerning Rand, some discussion surrounding the merits of the statement "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" but you? No. You vomit diatribes on slavery and evil rich people.
I'm going to hazard a guess here, and say that you don't even remember reading those words in "Atlas Shrugged". A guess only, of course, as neither of us will ever be able to prove it one way or another.



And lastly, I actually don't mind reading Chomsky at all. He is what I'd refer to as a dear enemy, someone who actually does copius amounts of research into, and understands, his adversary's viewpoint. (Well... for the most part). Chomsky's opinions have value to me, and I am of what might be considered a diametrically opposed viewpoint, in many ways.

You, sunshine, don't even come close. You've not displayed a single coherent argument as to why Rand is wrong, instead choosing to reiterate over and over simply that she's bad, she's ugly, and she supported a system which somehow (and I haven't quite figured out how yet) leads to slavery. Or something. I have to ask... what is it that leads you here, to post, and to think that your demonstratively uninformed opinion is of any value to anyone at all?

Oh, and iceaura is there there too. Could do the same thing with him, but I think I'll just sum it up thusly:

iceAura: Ihatecapitalism and aynrandisacapitalistso allofthethingsihate mustbewhatshesupports andnoihaventreadthebookeither butiwatchedsomethingonyoutubeaboutherthisonetime.

Please add my name to the above group that view her books at best as dime store novels. Thanking you in advance The Duchess of Altruism.

 

[ElectricFetus]

electricfetus, you are arguing as if an economic system is responsible for a moral understanding. It is not.

I am? I don't believe in any such thing, so I'm rather surprised that what you think I was arguing about, can you explain how you interpreted this?

Not only that, but it's quite clear that if you did read Rand, you didn't understand a damned thing she wrote.

Rand fundamental philosophy is based around ethical selfishness or "Objectivism" and complete rejection of altruism. Here from the website dedicated to her philosophy: http://www.atlassociety.org/virtue-selfishness

"Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being. Since selfishness (as she understands it) is serious, rational, principled concern with one's own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue."

I simply can't accept this philosophy, sure I like the idea of rationalism curb stumping spiritualism, but that a different philosophy that is not obligate to objectvism. A world of people trained on the moral objective to care for themselves at the complete apathy of anyone and everyone else is a world I can't agree with. Even if we merely stand-by not sacrifice others in anyway for ourselves, leaving them to be is likely going to leave a lot of people to their doom, and because we are a society and not isolated from each other, their doom will drag the rest of us down with them. Tigers are the perfect example of Rand philosophy, they also are completely incapable of technology or of anything socially we humans value, human can't be tigers anymore than humans can be an insectoid super-organism (communism).

Don't try to claim you understood what you were reading. You demonstrate with nearly every word you do not.

No I think it clear you don't understand what your reading! Do you disagree that Rand despised Altruism? Found selfishness a virtue?

I simply hate to see pseudo intellectuals without a modicum of understanding, slamming something they demonstrate clearly they know nothing about.

what with all the slander? where is an actual argument? If what I said is in error, don't simply flick me off and say "well you don't understand you, you aah butt, yeah your a stupid butt!" actually make a counter argument, cite facts, demonstrate how I was wrong without fallacious arguments and just plane childish drivel. I'm not here for an intellectual pissing contest.

One might at least see, in a thread concerning Rand, some discussion surrounding the merits of the statement "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" but you? No. You vomit diatribes on slavery and evil rich people.

yeah you clearly did not read what I was saying, oh what that? How do I define this? Oh just saying so, no proof needed, yep

I'm going to hazard a guess here, and say that you don't even remember reading those words in "Atlas Shrugged". A guess only, of course, as neither of us will ever be able to prove it one way or another.

Lets get to the point here: Ayn Rand philosophies are perfectly defined in specific essays by her, one does not need to try to extract from the actions of fictional characters and fiction events based on fictional realty of one of her works of fiction "Atlas Shrugged" her philosophies and ideals. Nor worse use said work of fiction as a coda for a whole moral philosophy when her essays can do that part directly with far less ambiguity and interpretation. In short what your asking for is to do what religious people do and interpret moral code and righteousness from a bible!

I recommend you start out here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Virtue-Selfishness-Signet-Rand/dp/0451163931

And lastly, I actually don't mind reading Chomsky at all. He is what I'd refer to as a dear enemy, someone who actually does copius amounts of research into, and understands, his adversary's viewpoint. (Well... for the most part). Chomsky's opinions have value to me, and I am of what might be considered a diametrically opposed viewpoint, in many ways.

You, sunshine, don't even come close.

Why should I care?

You've not displayed a single coherent argument as to why Rand is wrong

says you.

instead choosing to reiterate over and over simply that she's bad, she's ugly,

I'm pretty sure I spoke nothing of her appearance and if her existences it's self had a moral value. But if you want me to this is the prefect time to bring this up:

Rand is not my favourite philosopher. In fact, I'd hardly qualify her as one at all.

That sad, because she was just the model of hubris when she said of her self as "the most creative thinker alive". So either she was a egotistical asshole eer excuse me "an egotistical bitch", or she was in fact the most creative thinker alive. Sort of reminds me of a opposite of Jim Hendrix, now hendrix was not a philosopher, merely a guitarist, but once when he was in an interview, the interviewer said of him "as one of the greatest guitarist alive" and he shook his head "no" and so the interviewer corrected him self "well the greatest guitarist in this [TV studio]" and Hendrix replied "I'm the greatest guitarist in this seat". Now that someone I can respect. Now here is the important part: Rand was a prominent philosopher, but she was also an egotistical bitch, I can separate those two and judge her philosophies alone, as I have been, and not discredit her philosophies for merely being the product of an egotistical bitch.

and she supported a system which somehow (and I haven't quite figured out how yet) leads to slavery.

Did I say that? Did I say her philosophy would lead to slavery? because honestly I don't think her philosophies would lead to a return in slavery. Laissez-faire capitalism does not cause slavery, it just does not care. What ever provides the most profit to the owners, nothing more, nothing less. Slavery exist because it was very profitable, as technology made such labor less profitable and as the rise of abolitionism cause a variety of indirect hindrances to the slaver owner it became unprofitable and was eventually dropped. I think in today's society and with present technology we could never return to slavery, her philosophies could lead to something much worse though: exterminism. Now mind you it would violate her apathy-but-not-sacrificing-of-others principle, but that a much easier boundary to cross then directly having to care about people as a matter of moral righteousness.

Or something. I have to ask... what is it that leads you here, to post, and to think that your demonstratively uninformed opinion is of any value to anyone at all?

I ask you now the very same question: what is it that leads you here, to post, and to think that your demonstratively uninformed opinion is of any value to anyone at all?

iceAura: Ihatecapitalism and aynrandisacapitalistso allofthethingsihate mustbewhatshesupports andnoihaventreadthebookeither butiwatchedsomethingonyoutubeaboutherthisonetime.

Seriously, Childish!

 

[Trooper]

Has anyone watched Michael Sandel’s lectures?

http://www.justiceharvard.org/

In what sense do we own ourselves?

Do objectivists overestimate their independence from society?

 

[The Marquis]

Please add my name to the above group that view her books at best as dime store novels. Thanking you in advance The Duchess of Altruism.

Sure, no worries. They are pretty much dime store novels. Rather popular ones, but Rand isn't exactly what you'd call a good writer, even allowing for the fact that English wasn't her first language. Some of her passages were absolutely execrable, and her expression was stilted at best - much like mine.
Personally, I don't really think the bible is of much literary value either, but one cannot deny it has had some significant effects on the way people think. I'm guilty of not reading someone because I don't like the way they write as well... we all are. In itself, however, that is no reason to wade into a thread and say so. If everyone did that, one would have to wade through ten pages of useless crap before one came across anything of value.
Of course, I'm of the opinion this site is nearly at that point already. Yes, I understand the necessity of mass*, but there is no reason on Earth I should be forced to like it.


I'm also not sure why you appear to believe I should add your name to any group at all. I don't really remember you, and of course one would think if you'd written anything worth remembering, I would have remembered it. I mean, if the list you're thinking of is "people not to bother reading" then of course you'd have something, but you see that list would be awfully long, and I'm essentially too lazy to even consider putting names on it, given how many would hypothetically need to be added.

One of the more annoying things about this site is having to wade through mountains of pointless one liners in order to read something from someone who actually puts some thought into things before posting. Was there a point to posting that, or do you subscribe to the theory that you should post an opinion for no better reason than you've been bought up to believe you're entitled to one?

For someone who describes herself as the "Duchess of Altruism", you really do like being noticed, don't you? Even if it means posting something in a thread of little intrinsic value... so long as someone notices you were there. And that is one of the significant things you'll grow to learn about altruism. It is one of those things which, in the vast majority of cases, demands notice.
There are those who may not value fiscal reward (or at least, they'll claim not to), but are perfectly happy just to be recognised. That, being a reward in itself, refutes the notion of altruism.


*That, for someone I know

 

[The Marquis]

Rand fundamental philosophy is based around ethical selfishness or "Objectivism" and complete rejection of altruism. Here from the website dedicated to her philosophy: http://www.atlassociety.org/virtue-selfishness

"Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being. Since selfishness (as she understands it) is serious, rational, principled concern with one's own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue."

I simply can't accept this philosophy, sure I like the idea of rationalism curb stumping spiritualism, but that a different philosophy that is not obligate to objectvism. A world of people trained on the moral objective to care for themselves at the complete apathy of anyone and everyone else is a world I can't agree with. Even if we merely stand-by not sacrifice others in anyway for ourselves, leaving them to be is likely going to leave a lot of people to their doom, and because we are a society and not isolated from each other, their doom will drag the rest of us down with them. Tigers are the perfect example of Rand philosophy, they also are completely incapable of technology or of anything socially we humans value, human can't be tigers anymore than humans can be an insectoid super-organism (communism).

Know what I find amusing? That you had to go off and read a website before you could reply with a definition of Objectivism. Speaks volumes, really, that before now, you couldn't define it yourself, and had to go and check first before presumably coming back with the one closest to the point you wanted to argue.

That aside, let's address this for a moment. Again, it comes down to a subjective opinion on what you believe selfishness (and, by contrast, altruism) to be. Now, when I claim that it's clear you haven't understood what you'd read (assuming, for the moment, that you actually did) it really comes down to these few key points.
Now I have a question for you. What do you think Rand's view of what constitutes selfishness actually was? Define her viewpoint, and then clarify your own. See if you can find some actual quotes, from Rand herself, in support of your argument.
Understand, this part is actually quite important. In the context of this thread, people are going to approach the word with differing understandings and sympathies.
It's one thing to claim making an argument, quite another to actually do so. Let's see how you go with it.

No I think it clear you don't understand what your reading! Do you disagree that Rand despised Altruism? Found selfishness a virtue?

Not at all. Both of those things are true. But I've addressed this above - or at least have said as much as I'm going to until you demonstrate you're going to comprehend a word that might follow.

what with all the slander? where is an actual argument? If what I said is in error, don't simply flick me off and say "well you don't understand you, you aah butt, yeah your a stupid butt!" actually make a counter argument, cite facts, demonstrate how I was wrong without fallacious arguments and just plane childish drivel. I'm not here for an intellectual pissing contest.

Well, to be honest I'd hesitate to call this particular pissing contest an "intellectual" one, but yes, you are here for a pissing contest. What, you think the likes of you posting here is going to change the world? Or is it because you want to hear what others have to say about what you said? I mean seriously, be dishonest with me all you like, but one of the processes of learning is being honest at least with yourself.

As for the rest;
Firstly, it appears to be quite fine for you to come on here and misrepresent Rand to anyone who will listen, but then when someone gets a little disrespectful with you, you turtle up, scream slander, and hide behind moral laws governing this site and what you consider to be fair play within debate.
Such a pity Rand isn't here to defend herself, hmm? Seemingly gives you the right to call her an egotistical bitch, something you clearly wouldn't get away with were she actually alive and a member of Sciforums. Oh, of course. you quoted what someone else said, without specifically stating it happens to coincide with what you think. Gives you the out later on of saying silly things like "show me where I said that".
You're dishonest.

.. oh, and while we're on the subject, I never said you were a stupid butt.

Secondly, I'm not flicking you off at all. I'm still here, am I not? Devoting some of my precious time to changing your opinion..
Which isn't true, of course. There isn't one of us here who actually is all that... altruistic. We're here, in the main, to find sympathy among the like minded, not to convert the unenlightened. To find praise for our own points of view, and in some cases to explore even deeper social currents. Some of us are even here to make fun of those, but always with an eye open to who might be watching.

yeah you clearly did not read what I was saying, oh what that? How do I define this? Oh just saying so, no proof needed, yep

But... I thought those were the rules.
I'm sure you can point out some passage where you've taken something Rand has written and refuted it using logical argument rather than opinion. Can't you? I have to admit to a certain amount laziness born of cynicism that I might find it myself, so you'll need to help me here.

Lets get to the point here: Ayn Rand philosophies are perfectly defined in specific essays by her, one does not need to try to extract from the actions of fictional characters and fiction events based on fictional realty of one of her works of fiction "Atlas Shrugged" her philosophies and ideals. Nor worse use said work of fiction as a coda for a whole moral philosophy when her essays can do that part directly with far less ambiguity and interpretation. In short what your asking for is to do what religious people do and interpret moral code and righteousness from a bible!

Ah, yes. So, what we have here is an attempt to deflect by saying that her fiction was not a reflection of her actual philsophy? Is this what you're claiming?

There is the fact that Toohey was one of those fat cats you abhor, and yet you claim Rand supported his kind. He was the antithesis of Reardon.
There is the fact the Reardon would never stoop to bribery, cajoling, undermining his competition or even advertising to promote sales of his products, preferring to rely upon the quality of his work selling itself.
There was even the switch operator whose name I can never remember, who in Rand's world was far from being a slave, but rather a respected employee who took pride in his work and was respected and paid accordingly. A man who knew his worth, and respected those who also had worth.

These three characters, being examples, are why I can safely claim you haven't understood a damned thing you read. Because if you had, you'd know these who these characters were, what they stood for, and what they represented. While being one-dimensional, Rand herself acknowledged they were so to serve the purpose of being representatives of an ideal. Reardon was held up as the "ideal man", Toohey the opposite.

Yet here you are, claiming Rand supports the Tooheys of this world (and I wonder if you even know to whom I refer, and to what).

This is why there are those arguing you have not read, and have not understood. Because those who have, are able to clearly see what you've missed or misinterpreted.
You're like a blind man, trying to convince his sighted partner that the door they're about to enter is purple, when it is quite clearly green.
Now tell me why your opinion demands respect?

I recommend you start out here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Virtue-Selfishness-Signet-Rand/dp/0451163931

Let me get this straight. You're attempting to tell me what parts of Rand I should read?
And yet, you speak of hubris. It's difficult to find words to describe the hypocrisy inherent in this statement.

Your aim here is to tell me that the characters in her works of fiction do not represent her philosophy, and therefore should not be considered (probably because you've never heard of them), but rather we should read what she said in her essays (which you have failed to provide quotations from).
You back this up by posting a link to some book on Amazon, which I can't read without paying for.

Not once have you directly quoted from any one of these essays you claim are the "real" Rand. Not once have you linked to an actual quotation, but rather to other's interpretations of Rand.
This is what constitutes proof and fair argument for you.
Phht. Back on your horse, sunshine. Ride on.

Why should I care?

Heh. Funny, on more than one level.

I'm pretty sure I spoke nothing of her appearance and if her existences it's self had a moral value. But if you want me to this is the prefect time to bring this up:

"That sad", because she was just the model of hubris when she said of her self as "the most creative thinker alive". So either she was a egotistical asshole eer excuse me "an egotistical bitch", or she was in fact the most creative thinker alive.

Oh, I see. So because Rand said of herself that she was the greater thinker alive, you should dismiss what else she says. So, effectively, you think that she was was an egotistical bitch (I cannot imagine you'd agree with her own self-assessment), and this has, as has been pointed out, formed the thrust of your arguments.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I do seem to remember you speaking of the grey, that area in which the black and white mingle. Are you now saying it doesn't exist?

By contrast:

Sort of reminds me of a opposite of Jim Hendrix, now hendrix was not a philosopher, merely a guitarist, but once when he was in an interview, the interviewer said of him "as one of the greatest guitarist alive" and he shook his head "no" and so the interviewer corrected him self "well the greatest guitarist in this [TV studio]" and Hendrix replied "I'm the greatest guitarist in this seat". Now that someone I can respect. Now here is the important part: Rand was a prominent philosopher, but she was also an egotistical bitch, I can separate those two and judge her philosophies alone, as I have been, and not discredit her philosophies for merely being the product of an egotistical bitch.

Someone who is humble automatically has more respect accorded to what they do or say.

That's really quite true, you know.
Not the part about you being able to separate the two, of course. That part is like you claiming you're Hendrix himself - rather laughable. Of course you can't. No one can, really... but you are one of the least adept I've corresponded with recently. That is in addition to being a not terribly humble thing to say, you terrible bad arrogant person, you.

This sort of thing is right up there with beautiful people being more popular, more socially adjusted, finding it easier to get jobs, or even being listened to at all. Human nature, they call it.
humble: sympathy for their opinions. Arrogant: animosity. It's quite obvious from which you formed the basis for your opposition to Rand, I'm only surprised you're attempting to claim otherwise.
Well, actually, no I'm not.

Did I say that? Did I say her philosophy would lead to slavery? because honestly I don't think her philosophies would lead to a return in slavery. Laissez-faire capitalism does not cause slavery, it just does not care. What ever provides the most profit to the owners, nothing more, nothing less. Slavery exist because it was very profitable, as technology made such labor less profitable and as the rise of abolitionism cause a variety of indirect hindrances to the slaver owner it became unprofitable and was eventually dropped. I think in today's society and with present technology we could never return to slavery, her philosophies could lead to something much worse though: exterminism. Now mind you it would violate her apathy-but-not-sacrificing-of-others principle, but that a much easier boundary to cross then directly having to care about people as a matter of moral righteousness.

You've spent the last page or so arguing about slavery, the USA, and all sorts of things you think are wrong with capitalism.
Now, if you weren't making the connection, then why bring it all up in this thread? Why are you even talking about those things? You're either competely OT, or you're making the connection. Which is it?

I ask you now the very same question: what is it that leads you here, to post, and to think that your demonstratively uninformed opinion is of any value to anyone at all?

No, you. I asked first. And my dad can beat up your dad. Well... he might have, were he still alive.

But, in answer, I don't claim my opinion is worth anything to anyone at all. I think it might be, to some.
It is obviously not an uninformed one, though, as yours clearly is - on the subject of Rand, at least, which is the only thing of yours I've read.
This thread and your performance here hasn't, for the record, inspired me to go searching the forums for your name.

And that, along with the notion that an uninformed opinion holds as much right to be expressed as an informed one, is where the difference lies.

Over to you.

Seriously, Childish!

Yes, it was. Rather fun, nonetheless.

Phew. Well. That filled part of an evening. Although I have to admit to watching the third series of The Walking Dead while I was at it.

 

[The Marquis]

Has anyone watched Michael Sandel’s lectures?

http://www.justiceharvard.org/

No, haven't.

Do objectivists overestimate their independence from society?

To a large extent, yes of course they do.
It is possible to operate within society, yet be ideologically apart from it. Yet society determines what has value, something Rand's "ideal man" yearns to create, and to be recognised and recompensed for.

 

[quinnsong]

Sure, no worries. They are pretty much dime store novels. Rather popular ones, but Rand isn't exactly what you'd call a good writer, even allowing for the fact that English wasn't her first language. Some of her passages were absolutely execrable, and her expression was stilted at best - much like mine.
Personally, I don't really think the bible is of much literary value either, but one cannot deny it has had some significant effects on the way people think. I'm guilty of not reading someone because I don't like the way they write as well... we all are. In itself, however, that is no reason to wade into a thread and say so. If everyone did that, one would have to wade through ten pages of useless crap before one came across anything of value.
Of course, I'm of the opinion this site is nearly at that point already. Yes, I understand the necessity of mass*, but there is no reason on Earth I should be forced to like it.


I'm also not sure why you appear to believe I should add your name to any group at all. I don't really remember you, and of course one would think if you'd written anything worth remembering, I would have remembered it. I mean, if the list you're thinking of is "people not to bother reading" then of course you'd have something, but you see that list would be awfully long, and I'm essentially too lazy to even consider putting names on it, given how many would hypothetically need to be added.

One of the more annoying things about this site is having to wade through mountains of pointless one liners in order to read something from someone who actually puts some thought into things before posting. Was there a point to posting that, or do you subscribe to the theory that you should post an opinion for no better reason than you've been bought up to believe you're entitled to one?

For someone who describes herself as the "Duchess of Altruism", you really do like being noticed, don't you? Even if it means posting something in a thread of little intrinsic value... so long as someone notices you were there. And that is one of the significant things you'll grow to learn about altruism. It is one of those things which, in the vast majority of cases, demands notice.
There are those who may not value fiscal reward (or at least, they'll claim not to), but are perfectly happy just to be recognised. That, being a reward in itself, refutes the notion of altruism.


*That, for someone I know

Being a Marquis I just thought you would appreciate my self appointed title Duchess. I find some of the more pithy responses in a thread to be the better ones on occasion, so......

Marquis you will be relieved to know I spend most of my time reading through threads and that I only participate about 20% of the time because usually someone else has already expressed my views much better than I and are better writers than I.

I am a socialist so it should come as no shock to you that I find Ayn Rand and her philosophy repulsive. I find nothing redeeming about Rand's narcissistic philosophy nor her fictional hero John Galt. True it may be that too many readers and followers of Rand were and are too immature in their thinking that they have no obligation to help others when in fact kindness, generosity and mutual aid are part of human beings survival skill set. Ultimately this is Rand's fault because she all but ignores this aspect of the human experience except to say that these virtues are not the essence of life leaving the reader to draw the conclusion that a total focus on self in self interest is what she means.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Know what I find amusing? That you had to go off and read a website before you could reply with a definition of Objectivism. Speaks volumes, really, that before now, you couldn't define it yourself, and had to go and check first before presumably coming back with the one closest to the point you wanted to argue.

I'm not suppose to cite things now? I call it ethical selfishness because that what it is, "Objectivism" literally obscures it meaning for PR perposes, it like calling a piece of shit a "little brown boy".

That aside, let's address this for a moment. Again, it comes down to a subjective opinion on what you believe selfishness (and, by contrast, altruism) to be. Now, when I claim that it's clear you haven't understood what you'd read (assuming, for the moment, that you actually did) it really comes down to these few key points.
Now I have a question for you. What do you think Rand's view of what constitutes selfishness actually was? Define her viewpoint, and then clarify your own. See if you can find some actual quotes, from Rand herself, in support of your argument.
Understand, this part is actually quite important. In the context of this thread, people are going to approach the word with differing understandings and sympathies.
It's one thing to claim making an argument, quite another to actually do so. Let's see how you go with it.

Lets see I stated already what Rand constituted selfishness was and I even quoter her on it, at least indirectly, I state why I believe it wrong and by the outcomes it could result in. So I don't see what more your asking me of. Back to my point though: Rand rejects altruism. Are you denying this point? I think I cited and explain enough evidence to that point, now you need to either agree or disagree with a counter argument. Rather then being condescending and slanderous.

Not at all. Both of those things are true. But I've addressed this above - or at least have said as much as I'm going to until you demonstrate you're going to comprehend a word that might follow.

Lets go back to the whole issue of subjectiveness: how do you "comprehend" her philosophical statements? when Rand openly rejects altruism and claims selfishness is a virtue, what does that mean to you? Clearly it does not mean the same thing as it means to me. We could dance a million angels on the head of a pin forever as long as we don't see eye to eye on this.

Well, to be honest I'd hesitate to call this particular pissing contest an "intellectual" one, but yes, you are here for a pissing contest.

No, I'm here for debate, and hopefully enlightenment. I have a whole system for example with my threads in which I test my ideas on life, the universe, everything, against others, using them to help work out the flaws and falsehoods I failed to see. I'm not a pompous asshole that claims to turely know something and disregards all others by claiming "well you did not read it, you did not understand it because your too feeble minded" that someone that just come here to say "I can piss farther then you can!".

As for the rest;
Firstly, it appears to be quite fine for you to come on here and misrepresent Rand to anyone who will listen, but then when someone gets a little disrespectful with you, you turtle up, scream slander, and hide behind moral laws governing this site and what you consider to be fair play within debate.

Moral laws governing this site... what the fuck are you talking about? Let me explain it this way, it would be a debate if we were arguing about something debatable, but so far we have not been debating because you refuse to debate, you just reply in fallacious and slander. Where is your correction of my interpretation of Rand, clearly you think its wrong, prove it! Where is its cited evidence, where is the detail counter argument. Nope all you present is nothing more then "your wrong because your stupid >".

Such a pity Rand isn't here to defend herself, hmm? Seemingly gives you the right to call her an egotistical bitch, something you clearly wouldn't get away with were she actually alive and a member of Sciforums.

Well first I think I called some people here things worse then egotistical bitch, second I don't know who they are, they could be [insert greatest human being alive] I don't really care. So therefor if Rand was alive and here I would call her an egotistical bitch, and I would not take it back if I knew who she was or was not, because I don't care. Her philosophies and statements warrant that definition to me, in the common vernacular "I calls it likes I see it."

Oh, of course. you quoted what someone else said, without specifically stating it happens to coincide with what you think. Gives you the out later on of saying silly things like "show me where I said that".
You're dishonest.

Ok so your saying I'm dishonest because I quoted what someone else said, who was I quoting, what event specifically are you referring to. I want to understand why you think I'm being dishonest and correct said behavior if I was.

.. oh, and while we're on the subject, I never said you were a stupid butt.

I was providing an analogy, what you were saying was of the same class of behaviors. Instead of providing counter arguments, you insinuate or directly claim I lack the intelligence or knowledge to comprehend Rand and therefor my arguments are void, this is equivalent to a child telling another child that has said something to upset her "Well your a stupid butt!" instead of actually refuting what ever it was that she said. I believe it would classify as an ad hominem if you wish further reference.

You see I willing to clarify my points ad nausum, without malicious, can you do that?

Secondly, I'm not flicking you off at all. I'm still here, am I not?

Interesting so flicking off has the definition that the aah "flicker" needs to leave? Can you cite this?

Devoting some of my precious time to changing your opinion..

Precious time??? Your on a internet forum! You clearly don't have any precious time! If your time is precious why are you wasting it now?

Which isn't true, of course. There isn't one of us here who actually is all that... altruistic. We're here, in the main, to find sympathy among the like minded, not to convert the unenlightened.

No see that what your here to do, some of us are here for other reasons, some of us might actually be here to be enlightened!

I'm sure you can point out some passage where you've taken something Rand has written and refuted it using logical argument rather than opinion. Can't you?

Yes, yes I have. For example Rand speaks of her philosophy as that it is virtuous not to sacrifice to other, but (of course) not to have them sacrifice themselves for you. This is apathy: to not care about others, at least in action, for it would be wrong to help others in need as that would be self-sacrificing. Imagine you see someone being robbed, you could intervene and risk getting robbed or murder yourself (sacrifice) or you can just stand back and watch, which do you think Rand would have gone with? I think if Rand was her now she would argue that in the world her philosophy creates there would be no robbers, but we don't live in that world and will never live in that world until after the extinction and replacement of homo sapiens.

Unfortunately human society now and here does not work that way: we can't be concern with only our own interest because we are in constant interaction with the interest of others. Let say we have two people in the desert and only one of them has water, the one holding the water is a follower of Rand's ethical selfishness, so he does not give water to the other, this results in only a few outcome: the other fights him for the water and wins, killing him or the other fights him for the water and he wins, killing the other. Its a gamble, another option outside of the range of Rand's ethical selfishness is to share that water, despite the hard work the man did to procure it, to the other, achieveing at least stability for the time being, at least when he dies he won't die a dick. If he survives from dickishness (assuming he managed to stave off and kill the other) but has an emotional curse on him for the rest of his life that he killed the other, what value is his life?

Rand argues that that emotion is illogical, that survival is all that matters. She did not think to far, for we all die, we are all going to die, the human race will be extinct eventually, what does it matter but to do what makes us feel good for the short time that is our lives? Rationalize has no value because in the end nothing matters. Frankly lots of people like helping others whether it is rational or not, and a lot of people like being dicks, the latter lack of altruism is what brings much conflict and suffering into the world. More altruism would increase the amount of happiness in the world, Rand argue against this, that those others are only robbing the hard work of her followers, but because we living in this world and with society, the hard work of the ethically selfish comes invariably off the suffering of the other, in short the other are being made to sacrifice. For example if I don't give to the poor they remain poor, they do not get jobs, nor educations, as the metaphor goes they do not pull themselves up by their boot straps for they have no boot straps. As poor those jobs they don't get and those resources they can't pecure are now more available to me, chances are i would not be as rich has they in fact 'pull themselves up' somehow, I benefit and they sacrifice. In short Rand proposes something that is impossible, that somehow ones own action/inaction can be completely disconnected from affecting others and therefor not require sacrifice on their part, and therefor we can all be self made and only need care about ourselves as the ultimate goal. That philosophy would work fine if we were tigers and not humans.

Ah, yes. So, what we have here is an attempt to deflect by saying that her fiction was not a reflection of her actual philsophy? Is this what you're claiming?

No, its just if you want to argue about her philosophy, why not do it directly from her explicit dictations of her philosophy by her in her essays and manifesto? Why do you use her work of fiction "Atlas Shrugs" when her non-fiction "Virtue Of Selfishness" is a far superior source in defining and describing her philosophy?

There is the fact that Toohey was one of those fat cats you abhor, and yet you claim Rand supported his kind. He was the antithesis of Reardon.

Rand supports the self made man, yes, but not the one that sacrifices other for him self, thus not being self made. Rather Rand failure was to believe anyone could be self made, when in actuality no one is. Rand would have us believe that the 'fat cats' of the world knowingly trampled on others to get their way, when often enough they don't know and even believe they got everything they have by their own, rand philosophy provides moral comfort to such people by the way.

There is the fact the Reardon would never stoop to bribery, cajoling, undermining his competition or even advertising to promote sales of his products, preferring to rely upon the quality of his work selling itself.

Now, and this is important, can that work in REALITY? Can we have a whole society based on such moral rigidity, and particularly one based on Rand's vision. No, no we can't. Not everyone can get by on their products without advertising that said products exist, nor is say bribery always wrong (Like how Lincoln supposedly bribed his way to getting emancipation passed). This is the problem with taking a work of fiction and thinking it can apply to reality, for example Harry Potter could never happen for it present metaphysics (and physics) that don't exist in reality, some of its morals like how to trade with goblins are completely useless to us (and obviously so) likewise Atlas Shrugs can never happen, for it relies on metaphysics that does not exist in reality and it presents morals that are useless to us. At least Rand's direct works of philosophy get around presenting the impossible alagory of her work of fiction.

There was even the switch operator whose name I can never remember, who in Rand's world was far from being a slave, but rather a respected employee who took pride in his work and was respected and paid accordingly. A man who knew his worth, and respected those who also had worth.

There are very few switch operators anymore, they been replaced by machines. The "worth" of people is decreasing as a matter of technological progress, Rand philosophy will lead to horrible consequences if technology continues to progress (and dam it if it does not!).

Yet here you are, claiming Rand supports the Tooheys of this world (and I wonder if you even know to whom I refer, and to what).

Yes, she does, she my not haven't meant to but she does. There aren't very many real life Reardens, nor will there be, the chances that a self made man will go so far on purely there on virtue is very slim. Most investors never find the invention that makes them rich, not because they didn't try hard enough but because probability was against them. To improve chances of making the great profitable discoveries and of running the company right, requires a lot of help, yet the owners of said companies can think they did it all themselves, that they alone are what keeps the cooperation afloat, thanks to philosophies like Rand's, Rand implores the 'Tooheys' of the world to think they are 'Reardens'.

Now tell me why your opinion demands respect?

Respect? who said it does? Let me ask the reverse, do your opinion demand respect? How does one show respect for opinions? Honestly I don't think an opinion needs respect, its not a person, it has no feelings, I just think people should be respectful to other people. Being condescending, slanderous, fallacious instead of counter arguing me is not respecting me, not my opinion. Now I stated how I disagree with Rand philosophy specifically and your reply is that I did not read or understand Atlas Shugs, that not a counter argument.

Let me get this straight. You're attempting to tell me what parts of Rand I should read?
And yet, you speak of hubris. It's difficult to find words to describe the hypocrisy inherent in this statement.

How is it hypocritical? Am I wrong to assume "The Virtue of Selfishness" is not a better place to define and source Rand philosophy? Why is say going over a speech made by a fictional character of hers of more value? But more to the point how is hubris, am I imply I know more then you, god forbid that I am the most creative mind alive? Honestly I don't see how recommending The Virtue of Selfishness to you is hubris on my part, I'm not assuming you did not read it out of arrogance on my part, but because your using Atlas Shrugs to define her philosophies, and claiming my arguments against Rand philosophy as dictated by her in The Virtue of Selfishness and other sources is incongruent with your interpretation of Atlas Shrugs.

Your aim here is to tell me that the characters in her works of fiction do not represent her philosophy, and therefore should not be considered (probably because you've never heard of them),

My aim is to say her work of fiction is certainly prone to misinterpretation, because its a work of fiction, I'm consider her philosophies as direct stated by her, an rejecte them.

but rather we should read what she said in her essays (which you have failed to provide quotations from).

I been quoting her this whole time! I don't normally speak of "sacrificing to others"! But lets go to the point here: do you disagree that Rand philosophy is specially about not sacrificing to others, that only only serving ones self is of the high moral value, that sacrificing to others is wrong and only prevents them from achieving their self-worth? What have I misconstrued or misquote of hers, please tell me?

You back this up by posting a link to some book on Amazon, which I can't read without paying for.

Well I could recommend you start of with websites dedicated to her philosophies:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/introducing-objectivism.html
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

but you will probably claim I'm being arrogant and hubris on my part for daring to suggest such a thing.

Not once have you directly quoted from any one of these essays you claim are the "real" Rand. Not once have you linked to an actual quotation, but rather to other's interpretations of Rand.

For example Rand directly said "[man] neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself" I have made reference repeatedly now, I have deconstructed it and refuted its flaws. Do you deny she said this? If I misinterpreted it how so?

This is what constitutes proof and fair argument for you.
Phht. Back on your horse, sunshine. Ride on.

How rude, seriously, grow up.

Oh, I see. So because Rand said of herself that she was the greater thinker alive, you should dismiss what else she says.

You did not read what I said! I specifically stated that her being a egotistical bitch does not change what she said, I have specifically refuted her philosophies, alone, without care for who she was. You stated that my argument is against her as a person with, no my arguments are against her philosophies and has nothing to do with her as a person.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I do seem to remember you speaking of the grey, that area in which the black and white mingle. Are you now saying it doesn't exist?

I don't understand what that has to do in this context, what grey is... oooh wait I get it, you saying again that I'm judging her and not her philosophies, here let me quote my self again, I had it in bold but you clearly did not read it: "I can separate those two and judge her philosophies alone, as I have been, and not discredit her philosophies for merely being the product of an egotistical bitch."

Not the part about you being able to separate the two, of course. That part is like you claiming you're Hendrix himself - rather laughable.

I... claimed I'm Hendrix? 0_o

Of course you can't. No one can, really... but you are one of the least adept I've corresponded with recently. That is in addition to being a not terribly humble thing to say, you terrible bad arrogant person, you.

Oh you make be blush, tehetehe

This sort of thing is right up there with beautiful people being more popular, more socially adjusted, finding it easier to get jobs, or even being listened to at all. Human nature, they call it.
humble: sympathy for their opinions. Arrogant: animosity. It's quite obvious from which you formed the basis for your opposition to Rand, I'm only surprised you're attempting to claim otherwise.
Well, actually, no I'm not.

and exactly how much animosity have you displayed? Constant condescending, insulting references to my character is 'sympathy' to you? Or should I assume you don't believe in being humble, or would that be too 'arrogent' of me? Humility is to be open to the prospect that one is wrong, I am open to that, whether you believe it or not I honestly don't care, now back to the point: have I misinterpreted Rand and how? Or is my interpretation accurate by my refutations wrong, and how? But nooo you just want to talk about me, I'm faltered really.

You've spent the last page or so arguing about slavery, the USA, and all sorts of things you think are wrong with capitalism.

Well then you did not read or understand what I'm saying, but instead of leaving it at that: Capitalism is not slavery, capitalism does not cause slavery, it does not prevent it either. The argument that Laissez-faire capitalism brings only good and prosperity is erronous by the historical evidence that it lets horrible social exist (slavery) without fixing them. I was making a counter argument to this statement "That catalog indicates a standard of living far beyond that of circa 1750-1800 & shows that laissez faire capitalism without major unions did a good job for the average person." and other like it, nothing more. Do you understand?

No, you. I asked first.

yeah I already did that.

But, in answer, I don't claim my opinion is worth anything to anyone at all. I think it might be, to some.
It is obviously not an uninformed one, though, as yours clearly is - on the subject of Rand, at least, which is the only thing of yours I've read.

If my goal was to get your attention, then I would have won.

This thread and your performance here hasn't, for the record, inspired me to go searching the forums for your name.

And I should care because...?

And that, along with the notion that an uninformed opinion holds as much right to be expressed as an informed one, is where the difference lies.

You can keep saying my opinion is uninformed all you want, but you have yet to prove it.

Phew. Well. That filled part of an evening. Although I have to admit to watching the third series of The Walking Dead while I was at it.

Well that filled my morning, got to go to work now, but I admit I was watching the season finally of legend of korra again, it was so-so but many of the action sequences are so gorgeously animated.

 

[Dinosaur]

There was an amusing (to me at any rate) interplay in a lecture by Ayn Rand (paraphrases, not exact quotes). From a member of the audience:

You are unspeakably immoral. You advocate cheating, lying, stealing, murder, whatever you can get away with as proper conduct.

To which Ayn Rand replied:

If you think it is in your best interests to cheat, lie, steal, & murder it is a reflection on your moral code, not mine.

 

[The Marquis]

Why, thank you, Dinosaur.

You immediately started me thinking of the nature of the heckler, specifically in the context of this thread.

 

[The Marquis]

One more thing, with reference to this sparkybaby fella.

You're beginning to bore me. I'm trying, I really am, but you have no idea how much you limit my responses to you.

The only thing I can come up with by way of explanation right now is that you came back at me with some manga cartoon, with reference to how much the moving pictures interested you more than the story itself.

For me...

"why would you waste an egg like that?"
"I think it was rotten".

May be back atcha, Electricfetus, may not. Depends on what mood I'm in.
And you can take that any way you like.

 

[quinnsong]

One more thing, with reference to this sparkybaby fella.

You're beginning to bore me. I'm trying, I really am, but you have no idea how much you limit my responses to you.

The only thing I can come up with by way of explanation right now is that you came back at me with some manga cartoon, with reference to how much the moving pictures interested you more than the story itself.

For me...

"why would you waste an egg like that?"
"I think it was rotten".

May be back atcha, Electricfetus, may not. Depends on what mood I'm in.
And you can take that any way you like.

Come, come put your big boy pants on.

 

[The Marquis]

Come, come put your big boy pants on.

Oh, I'm trying. I really am. Haven't I said that before?

“…he stretched out his arms toward the dark water in a curious way, and, far as I was from him, I could have sworn he was trembling. Involuntarily I glanced seaward – and distinguished nothing except a single green light, minute and far away…”

 

[Trooper]

The Duchess of Altruism.

We humans have a deep need to be needed, do we not?

Or is it because you want to hear what others have to say about what you said?

How right am I, I wonder? Cognitive dissonance; it’s a bitch, isn't it?

For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. ~Ayn Rand

Politics is something I, too, have always avoided.

Do you have a political label, Marquis?

 

[ElectricFetus]

One more thing, with reference to this sparkybaby fella.

Oh who could that be?

You're beginning to bore me. I'm trying, I really am, but you have no idea how much you limit my responses to you.

oooh I'm so sorry! I love you!

The only thing I can come up with by way of explanation right now is that you came back at me with some manga cartoon, with reference to how much the moving pictures interested you more than the story itself.

Oh your going to mock me for my taste? First of all its an american produced cartoon, not japanese anima, not japanese comic (manga), second don't imply childishness/simplisity on my part, many of these kinds of cartoons are not meant for children or for simplistic interpretation: take this incredibly hilarious and epic scene from metalocaplyse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UBd_U2Tc- In short don't disrespect what you don't understand.

 

[The Marquis]

How right am I, I wonder? Cognitive dissonance; it’s a bitch, isn't it?

That bitch is your wife. Show some respect... even if others can or will not.

Do you have a political label, Marquis?

Only if you choose to pin one on me.
If I was to pin one on myself, it would read "do not disturb" 6 days out of seven.
On the seventh day, it could be anything. The only thing I never stray far from, though, is competence*.

*by which I mean, competence in politics. It doesn't really matter to me whether a government is Liberal or Labour (Republican or Democrat to the yanks), as long as they actually keep things balanced and moving forward.
The governments in Australia I've had time since WWII were samples of both - Menzies (li), Whitlam(la) (briefly), Keating(la), and Howard(li).
I suppose in Australia we do have the advantage of our governments being far more centrally-inclined politically than those in the US.