When exactly do you have to subsidize professional athletes who get injuries?
I'm for doing more to regulate when professional sports teams are subsidized with new stadiums with city tax revenue (effectively transferring wealth from the middle class to professional athletes). That would have been the better direction to take this in.
What many of those students are not walking away with is something that has long been recognized as invaluable — higher order thinking and reasoning skills. They can get their degrees without putting in more of an effort because in far too many instances the colleges and universities are not demanding more of them
You're the poster boy of this
At 23 I was an electrician apprentice making more than that with no debt. I joined the Army because I wanted to. I didn't start killing Iraqis until 25. Good job running to the shock comment that shows you maturity level well below 22.
deflecting the point that college kids have less skills by stating you'll start a "job".
Funny how you follow DOK around...
You going to read the le and comment on the op too?
if you say so. The fact you can't ever respond to the context of what I'm saying but instead resort to conjectures about me personally says plenty about your higher order thinking and reasoning skills (i.e. what policies do I exactly support but can't explain how to pay for? You still haven't explained det one).
SnC, they don't get it. They don't have the balls to join the military.
I bet the senator hasn't even read Atlas Shrugged.
I bet you didn't read the article
I did read it. Is there a test?
You mean the ins ution which perfectly flies in the face of objectivism?
Soldiers are the ultimate pathetic takers in a Randian world-view... they either demonstrate their lack of reasoning by risking their lives for the interests of the collective, or they do it for a pittance that demonstrates how low their self-esteem/intelligence is. An objectivist would never respect somebody who took orders for a living, or who abrogated the will of another human by force. They'd scoff at the GI bill and VA benefits used to incentive-ize conscription. "If you wanted to learn a trade," they'd say, "why didn't you go learn one instead of leeching off taxpayers to do it?"
Don't get me wrong... I respect y'all's service, but Ayn Rand? She would think you were less roaches.
I think you have Rand's views wrong.
In what way(s) do you think he has them wrong?
I know more about her philosophy by reading it first-hand than you got from that amazing do entary you were raving about a few weeks back.
You mean the ins ution which perfectly flies in the face of objectivism?
Soldiers are the ultimate pathetic takers in a Randian world-view... they either demonstrate their lack of reasoning by risking their lives for the interests of the collective, or they do it for a pittance that demonstrates how low their self-esteem/intelligence is. An objectivist would never respect somebody who took orders for a living, or who abrogated the will of another human by force. They'd scoff at the GI bill and VA benefits used to incentive-ize conscription. "If you wanted to learn a trade," they'd say, "why didn't you go learn one instead of leeching off taxpayers to do it?"
Don't get me wrong... I respect y'all's service, but Ayn Rand? She would think you were less roaches.
Her views were of an immigrant and being afraid our country would turn out like the Eastern bloc nations. Her writings were fiction. Now to suggest she would feel like she does about our military today, would be to say our military is the same as she wrote fictionally about.
She didn't limit herself to fiction, Professor.
True.
What does that have to do with her opinion?
Are you going to lie to us, and tell us that the military we have today closely resembles that in her books?
Who said anything about professional?
Millions are wasting their lives thinking they'll someday make it as a pro.
Negative Ghost rider. Randian view believed that armies and police should be used to protect against the taking and blocking of trade. With America protecting all sea passages and going to war with countries and opening up markets freely it's pretty much doing this. You are over simplifying their views.You mean the ins ution which perfectly flies in the face of objectivism?
Soldiers are the ultimate pathetic takers in a Randian world-view... they either demonstrate their lack of reasoning by risking their lives for the interests of the collective, or they do it for a pittance that demonstrates how low their self-esteem/intelligence is. An objectivist would never respect somebody who took orders for a living, or who abrogated the will of another human by force. They'd scoff at the GI bill and VA benefits used to incentive-ize conscription. "If you wanted to learn a trade," they'd say, "why didn't you go learn one instead of leeching off taxpayers to do it?"
Don't get me wrong... I respect y'all's service, but Ayn Rand? She would think you were less roaches.
I'll answer with two questions:
1) What the are you talking about?
2) How is it germane to my point?
I never cited her fiction, see? Lemme set the tee-ball up again...
GI Bill is an incentive that at it's inception was paid by the GI. VA Benefits are also a way to pay for the Army destroying a person's body. You are making them out to be anarchists. Which they are not.You mean the ins ution which perfectly flies in the face of objectivism?
Soldiers are the ultimate pathetic takers in a Randian world-view... they either demonstrate their lack of reasoning by risking their lives for the interests of the collective, or they do it for a pittance that demonstrates how low their self-esteem/intelligence is. An objectivist would never respect somebody who took orders for a living, or who abrogated the will of another human by force. They'd scoff at the GI bill and VA benefits used to incentive-ize conscription. "If you wanted to learn a trade," they'd say, "why didn't you go learn one instead of leeching off taxpayers to do it?"
Don't get me wrong... I respect y'all's service, but Ayn Rand? She would think you were less roaches.
One thing about their views is they debated it non-stop. It was ever changing.
Objectivism is a philosophy, not a detailed blueprint for all aspects of social organization. As society gets closer to being one based in our core values of reason, individualism, achievement, and freedom, there will be many options to explore, and we will gain much practical experience in seeing how different ins utional arrangements work out. From basic principles of human nature we can say something about the make-up of a just society, but we cannot say everythingwithout more experience and expertise to draw on. As a result, today there is a wide range of reasonable debate among Objectivists about the proper extent and form of the government of a free society.
Now, on to your questions.
1) The nature of military service
Ayn Rand opposed the military draft as a violation of individual rights. There is some argument to be made for granting the government broad, exceptional powers in genuine emergency situations, but these are much, much rarer than commonly supposed. A war that a country's citizens do not volunteer to take part in is a war that deserves to be abandoned, and to coerce innocent people to risk or lose their lives is a profound violation of the purpose of government. A volunteer military, always and by all means.
You can read more of my thoughts on the draft in my article “Free Minds and Free Militaries.”
Who would serve? Citizens, I suppose. There are arguments against employing non-citizen mercenaries (Fall of the Roman Empire, and all that), but these are not decisive. We would have to see what ins utions best accord with practical justice.
http://www.atlassociety.org/objectivism_military
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
