By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.
-The Southern Manifesto, Cong. Rec., 84th Cong. 2d Session, Vol. 102, part 4 (March 12, 1956)
‘This was an activist court that you saw today. Anytime the Supreme Court renders something constitutional that is clearly unconstitutional, that undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court. I do believe the court’s credibility was undermined severely today.”
-Michele Bachmann (R. Minn.), June 26 2012
Most people are familiar with the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al., 349 U.S. 483 (1954), in which a unanimous Supreme Court summarily outlawed public school segregation by tersely declaring, “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” 349 U.S. at 495. But many people do not know that Brown involved a consolidation of cases from four states. The “et al.” in the style refers to decisions on similar facts in Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. And the response of Virginia to the ruling in Brown provides an interesting comparison with the actions leading to the current government shutdown.
In 1951 the population of Prince Edward County, Virginia was approximately 15,000, more than half of whom were African-American. The county maintained two high schools to accommodate 386 black students and 346 white students. Robert R. Moton High School lacked adequate science facilities and offered a more restricted curriculum than the high school reserved for white students. It had no gym, showers or dressing rooms, no cafeteria and no restrooms for teachers. Students at Moton High were even required to ride in older school buses.
Suit was filed in federal district court challenging the Virginia constitutional and statutory provisions mandating segregated public schools. Although the trial court agreed that the school board had failed to provide a substantially equal education for African-American students, it declined to invalidate the Virginia laws, concluding that segregation was not based “upon prejudice, on caprice, nor upon any other measureless foundation,” but reflected “ways of life in Virginia” which “has for generations been a part of the mores of the people.” Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 103 F. Supp. 337, 339 (E.D. Va. 1952). Instead, the court ordered the school board to proceed with the completion of existing plans to upgrade the curriculum, physical plant and buses at Moton High School. When the plaintiffs took an appeal from the decision, the Democratic machine that had for many years controlled Virginia politics under the firm hand of Sen. Harry Byrd had little reason to believe that “ways of life” that had prevailed since the end of the Reconstruction era would soon be declared illegal.
When the Brown decision was announced, the reaction in Virginia was shock, disbelief and anger. Reflecting the prevailing attitudes, the Richmond News Leader railed against “the encroachment of the Federal government, through judicial legislation, upon the reserved powers of the States.” The Virginia legislature adopted a resolution of “interposition” asserting its right to “interpose” between unconstitutional federal mandates and local authorities under principles of state sovereignty. And Sen. Byrd organized a campaign of opposition that came to be known as “Massive Resistance.”
In August of 1954 a commission was appointed to formulate a plan to preserve segregated schools. Late in 1955, it presented its recommendations, including eliminating mandatory school attendance, empowering local school boards to assign students to schools and creating special tuition grants to enable white students to attend private schools. Enabling legislation was quickly adopted and “segregation academies” began forming around the state. Subsequent legislation went even further by prohibiting state funding of schools that chose to integrate.
In March of 1956, 19 senators and 77 house members from 11 southern states signed what is popularly known as “The Southern Manifesto,” in which they declared, “Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the States and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.”
Throughout this period the Prince Edward County schools remained segregated, but when various court rulings invalidated Virginia’s various attempts to avoid integration, the school board took its final stand. It refused to authorize funds to operate any schools in the district, and all public schools in the county were simply closed, and remained closed from 1959 to 1964.
There are striking similarities between Sen. Byrd’s failed plan of Massive Resistance and Republican efforts to prevent implementation of the Affordable Care Act. There was widespread confidence among conservatives that the Supreme Court would declare the Act unconstitutional. When that did not occur, legislators such as Michele Bachmann, quoted above, attempted to deny the legitimacy of the Court’s ruling. Brent Bozell went further, denouncing Chief Justice Roberts as “a traitor to his own philosophy,” hearkening back to the days when southern roadsides were replete with billboards demanding the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren.
The House of Representatives has taken over 40 votes to repeal the ACA, quixotic efforts pursued for reasons known only to John Boehner and his colleagues. And in accordance with the Virginia legislative model, the House has attempted to starve the ACA by eliminating it from funding bills. Following the failure of these efforts, Republicans have elected to pursue the path ultimately taken by the school board of Prince Edward County and have shut down the government.
Even the strategy followed by Republicans is largely a southern effort. Approximately 60% of the Tea Party Caucus is from the South. Nineteen of the 32 Republican members of the House who have been instrumental in orchestrating the shutdown are from southern states. It is hardly surprising therefore, that the current impasse is characterized by the time-honored southern belief in nullification theory as a proper antidote to disfavored decisions by a congressional majority.
In reflecting upon the experience of Virginia many years later, former Gov. Linwood Holton noted, “Massive resistance … served mostly to exacerbate emotions arrayed in a lost cause.” Republicans would do well to ponder the wisdom in that observation.
Skip: Many countries are rich in natural resources. Like the USA, Russia, most in Europe. Norway was a Socialist country before they found oil, and happy then, too.
The Saudis have oil and a dictatorship. Iraq has oil, and they were never on the charts for happy countries or high standards of living. And as I said before, Norway does not RELY on their oil money, they still work for a living, as your unemployment figures show, they work harder than us.
The State has large ownership positions not for State profit, but because they manage the exploitation of those resources on behalf of the people, and put the money into national level investments that provide security for the people. Look into it; nobody in the Norwegian government is getting rich; they run an open-book government and society where everybody knows what everybody earns and makes. The government in Norway is, appropriately, acting as the servant of the people.
As to any larger point you may have, poverty of resources does not somehow justify the exploitation of workers and giving them even less of their fair share; in fact the opposite would be true. A lack of plentiful resources is all the more reason to share what we have and work together to ensure nobody is left behind or deprived of their fair share. The more wealth people have, the less they need to work together. Yet Norway does anyway.
Skip: Whatever rationale you believe there is for “buyer beware” (or “seller beware”, for that matter), the same rationale applies to demanding that government experts certify practitioners in disciplines that are far beyond the understanding of the average person. Unless you are trained in medicine, you are an incompetent judge of somebody’s medical expertise or likelihood of killing you; and so are all your friends you are using to make your judgment for you. You are not even a competent judge of diagnoses, unless the malady was something as simple as a broken finger, you don’t know if your friends were correctly or fraudulently diagnosed and then “cured.” or ripped off, or their own immune system cured them and the pretend “doctor” took the credit.
It is as if you are brain dead. A license from the state to practice law, or medicine, or build a building, is proof that people have basic knowledge, at least long enough to pass their certification tests. It is not a proof of general competence and prudence. That is why people still get recommendations for doctors and lawyers and engineering or architectural firms, or teachers or whatever else is licensed, because there can still be variance among the licensed. But at least we know they were capable of a minimum set of knowledge and expertise necessary to get their license; so we can worry less on that point.
I was just speaking with an attorney friend of mine on licensure laws and some of the negative ramification of such policies, costs being one of them because of the outlandish legal and medical costs that our society is suffering from. He actually stated to me; “you mean you would be willing to risk going to an unlicensed doctor”?
I replied, Yes, of course, under the condition that I knew he had cured other people of similar problems I was experiencing. I surely wouldn’t use someone who has not been recommended or that I don’t know of his experience and education based on some other means such as a book, lecture or seminar.
I asked him the question: would you be willing to go to a complete stranger rather than the doctor that has been treating you since a kid, or at least if they can’t treat you, to get a recommendation from them? I than asked, would you be afraid of going to the local hospital that has been in business for years and has treated thousands, just because government doesn’t require medical licensing.
It’s as if people are brain dead today. Would people really be willing to go to individuals that has no known history of competence, experience, education and professionalism in the field the are in need of. People are always asking me for references and I do the same. Apparently, licensing, despite all it’s proponents BS, still require the average person to seek recommendations from other trusted people, for professional services. As if people don’t understand the rationale for caveat emptor anymore nor get multiple opinions before hiring a professional of any sort.
Skip: I have work to do, but
1) I never said Norway was perfect; I said their brand of Socialism works better for people than our brand of politics.
2) I don’t care what your personal definition of Fascism is, you are wrong.
3) Skip says: hey rely heavily on oil and gas like the Saudis.
No, they don’t. They were socialists before North Sea oil was discovered. They considered the oil to belong to everybody, and specifically to NOT rely upon it, the Norwegians have a strategy, implemented in their law, that the oil would be sold, the profits would go into a Sovereign Wealth Fund, that would be invested, and they would allow profits (and only profits) from that SWF to fund no more than 5% of their national budget.
They do NOT rely on that money, all their social programs are funded by heavy taxation both on income and a national sales tax that works out to about 25%.
4) As for crime, or slavery, we have that in this country too, sexual slavery (about 80% of slaves) and labor slavery, for what the FBI estimates may be tens of thousands of people. There is a whole TV news series devoted to sex slaves in the USA. Literally slaves, captive and coerced under threat of death.
Tony C. Wiki: The country is richly endowed with natural resources including petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals. Large reserves of petroleum and natural gas were discovered in the 1960s, which led to a boom in the economy. Norway has obtained one of the highest standards of living in the world in part by having a large amount of natural resources compared to the size of the population. In 2011, 28% of state revenues were generated from the petroleum industry.[91]
Norway is the fifth-largest oil exporter and third-largest gas exporter in the world. Norway has a very low unemployment rate, currently 2.6%.[85] 30% of the labour force are employed by the government, the highest in the OECD.
The state has large ownership positions in key industrial sectors, such as the strategic petroleum sector (Statoil and Aker Solutions), hydroelectric energy production (Statkraft), aluminium production (Norsk Hydro), the largest Norwegian bank (DnB NOR), and telecommunication provider (Telenor). Through these big companies, the government controls approximately 30% of the stock values at the Oslo Stock Exchange. When non-listed companies are included, the state has even higher share in ownership (mainly from direct oil license ownership). Norway is a major shipping nation and has the world’s 6th largest merchant fleet, with 1,412 Norwegian-owned merchant vessels.
The country is richly endowed with natural resources including petroleum, hydropower, fish, forests, and minerals. Large reserves of petroleum and natural gas were discovered in the 1960s, which led to a boom in the economy. Norway has obtained one of the highest standards of living in the world in part by having a large amount of natural resources compared to the size of the population.
Skip: I have told you precisely why socialism is distinct from fascism. Modern Socialism as practiced in Norway does not involve any of the restrictive conditions of what you claim are a necessity in Socialism; and which are actually claimed in order to provide a path from Socialism to Communism, which Socialism does not have to be.
Socialists do not have to control the market or set prices. They can allow competition for the socialist-provided services, as Norway does.
Socialists do not have to own the means of production. They might, but it is not a necessity, and in fact if a functional competitive market exists for some of those means, they should probably use it (for example, in my city certain departments lease their office spaces from commercial landlords with five to ten year leases, open to competitive bid). In Norway, despite universal free health care, private for-profit hospitals and walk-in clinics can still operate, and do.
Socialists do not have to set prices or wages. Doctors, nurses, orderlies and technicians can all be paid market rates; the government does not have to force anybody to become a doctor, or work as a doctor. They can, just like a private-sector business does, set a wage for the job high enough that it attracts applicants, and adjust the wage as needed (up or down) to fill any vacancies or need for that type of job, just like a private sector business does. For example, if I need programmers, I can look to see what programmers are currently earning, and advertise at that rate. If I don’t like that crop, I can increase what I am willing to pay and get a better qualified selection.
Fascists aid corporations and the wealthy by passing laws that give them permission to earn profits by harming the populace, in particular by financially cornering the populace into working for survival wages in dangerous or dead end occupations with all legal recourses prohibited by law. Fascism puts profits ahead of humans.
Socialism is in direct opposition to that approach; by providing the basics of life (shelter, food, safety, health care and education) at near cost, they neuter the corporate leverage that would let them exploit the citizens by denying them one of those five basics. By taking away their metaphorical gun to the head of workers, corporations must resort to appeals to citizens based on a more fair distribution of profits and desires for a life beyond mere survival and subsistence.
And that is actually how it works out, in practice, for millions of people in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and other socialist countries. People are more free, because they are free to walk away from a workplace without facing financial disaster. Because of that, corporations treat them better and act better, more like partners and equals than commanders of subordinates. They can still fire people, and demand performance, and set their pay.
Whatever similarities you find between Fascism and Socialism or Communism and Socialism are bogus red herrings; Modern Socialism is fundamentally about restricting the ability of corporations to do whatever they want in the name of profits; and Fascism is the opposite of that. Modern Socialism mixed with Capitalism relies upon people’s ambition to get ahead, get rich, and accomplish new things, Communism defeats that ambition by making it impossible to get ahead (legally).
Definitions of Socialism that equate it to Communism or Fascism no longer apply and were always artificial; Socialism doesn’t need mechanisms from either of those philosophies to operate successfully, and is entirely compatible with 90% of Capitalism, competition (even with the socialist programs of the government), and market-based philosophy; Socialism also does not require any ceiling on earnings or wealth or success in order to be successful (and no such ceiling exists in Norway or many other socialist countries).
Tony, Just as a thought, Norway is a very unique system as compared to most others but not so much in it’s socio-economic model. I cut and pasted into a word file some very interesting tidbits on their society but it is several pages in length.
Norway pays for much of it’s social welfare system with money it derives from companies it owns such as oil and gas reserves in the north sea. It’s also one of the wealthiest per capita nations in the world with a huge surplus as well as being one of the largest creditor nation in the world. It like comparing us with some of the middle eastern countries, where everyone gets a free home, electricity and a car. No comparison, since we’re the largest debtor nation in the world. Norway has a large homogenous culture up until recent immigration.
Until the 1960’s, when oil and gas was discovered offshore, Norway was basically still an agricultural society, working along like most of the rest of the world, even though it was still a prosperous society in general because of it’s rich natural resources. It’s also the 6th largest arms exporter in the world and was neutral during WWI and WWII but was invaded and occupied during WWII. It was then interestingly enough, one of the founding members of Nato.
The various political parties appear to have the same opposing ideologies as many of the world’s countries have. It’s only a country of a little over 5 million people. There are more people in Southeastern Florida, (3 counties) than in the entire country and it has huge oil and gas deposits. It reminds me of Quebec. Capitalism created the oil and gas industry and government wants to take it over from the entities that made the initial investments. Venezuela is a great example of this and yet for many there, the money has not trickled down through the political system either.
The ownership of business by the state is still communistic by definition. The use of taxation and regulation to administer social programs is still socialism and the use of taxation and regulation to control the private sector is still fascism. What happens when the oil runs out is a big concern in Norway, as so many people work in the industry. They are actually setting aside profits for future investment. Money however does make a lot of social problems go away.
I think you will also find that in smaller countries the majority are much better able to control the corruption within the political system. Norway, is surely not the norm nor comparable to say the US or China in this regard.
I still stand by my definition where a mixed economy is still fascist by definition. Just because, the negative results of fascism are nullified at any one moment, by wealth and high employment, 30% government in Norway, doesn’t means it is still not fascism. Fascism is about control by the state and has historically been generally considered oppressive and authoritarian. It much like the Roman Empire, when everything was going good before the Empire crashed, but they still utilized a fascist model. You may not experience the negative effects of fascism until for instance Norway runs out of oil or some other technology becomes more cost efficient, which is what I think is going to happen.
There was a pretty significant terrorist attack in 2011, by a goup of their own people so all things are not perfect in Norway. The also suffer from many of the other social ills that many fascist societies suffer from. They also have a huge prostitution slavery industry because of the wealth and prices they get for prostitutes. Once you start looking into the underbelly of the beast I call fascism, you will see the ugly problems that even a rich country can’t overcome.
I am going to try to research that but it is much harder to dig up and get to people who really know and are willing to tell what’s going on.
Norway does look good on paper though and appears to have been able to keep their pay differentials between the rich and poor to a much better ratio than in the U.S. Perhaps it is due to free secondary education that diminishes the disconnect between the professional white collar and labour blue collar class, as it has here in the US. That’s just a guess. Haven’t been able to find anything on it other than it is lower.
In conclusion, I think it is erroneous to interject the notion that for fascism to exist, there must be existing physical and/or monetary oppression caused by authoritarian rule. As we see with both Norway and Quebec, even those they are a fascist oligarchies under socio-economics, they can still be wealthy at the moment. As we know, the deep seated underlying problems caused by politics can be easily white washed by money. Hopefully, I will be able to show this with more in depth research on Norway. Also, perhaps there are other unknown policies and practices by the ruling class, that are difficult or impossible to uncover by outsiders. The prostitution slavery issue is interesting. We think of Norway as this predominantly Caucasian goody two shoes society, yet in a society of only 5 million people we still have physical slavery. What?
As you guys already know about me, I believe that societies that embrace the various statist models, eventual fail for pretty much all the same reasons. A poor country may fail much sooner than a rich country but all socio-economic models where there are huge government interventions appear to fail over time and it just a matter of how long.
Things like the amount of gold reserves of a country, as a percentage of total reserves may have a future profound effect, as some of the EU countries are experiencing. Those countries with high gold reserves are now in a position to sell off their gold as many have been doing to thwart a default on payments. Those that do not have high gold reserves are being forced to cut government expenses through the various austerity programs. I do not know Norway’s gold reserves and ratio so it is another issue I need to look into. I would think that it is pretty high though. They are surely one of the better run countries but they rely heavily on oil and gas like the Saudis.
hskiprob wrote: “Norway is a very unique system as compared to most others but not so much in it’s socio-economic model.”
Skip, that was a most excellent post on Norway. Thank you for taking the time to share it. Very interesting stuff. I learned much more from your single post than from the multiple posts of your two nemeses who seem more intent on calling you names and beating their own chests than educating the rest of us.
Bron says: not hardly, if my mistake causes harm, then I should be held responsible. You think I am a one way highway.
And what if you cannot be held responsible? What if you cannot afford to pay for the damage, cannot bring the dead children back to life, cannot make up the lifetime earnings and care of a dead parent?
And what if, in all that, you don’t think you are responsible? That instead of your wiring or materials being up to code, there was no code, and in your bull headed ignorance we all know you embrace, you (or somebody like you) refuse to admit the logic of bad wiring causing fires?
Bron says: I am sort of curious as to why you think I want to run around violating people’s rights when all that would mean is that they can do the same to me.
I think you want to run around violating people’s Rights because the regulations you have made it clear you wish did not exist, like building codes and minimum wage laws and OSHA laws, are all there to protect people from predation, exploitation, fraud, and being duped into believing they are safe when they are not.
We make those things law because we consider them extensions of fundamental Rights, like life. A tiny part of your Right to Life is your right to not be killed by a builder cutting corners or building a fire trap. The IBC (International Building Code)* is dedicated to fire safety, escape route existence, and collapse prevention. Violating a building code is gambling with other people’s lives to save a buck or save an hour.
We don’t care if you think it is a fair trade. If a restaurateur is in too much of a hurry to keep a clean kitchen, and because of that his kitchen is overrun with cockroaches and rats eating rancid grease, He might think that is fair, because he eats his own food, so he is not selling you anything he does not eat himself.
His willingness to risk illness or poisoning does not give him the Right to expose you, or his customers, to the same illnesses and poisonings; which he is really doing out of laziness and / or greed.
Bron says: Do you violate people’s rights on a regular basis and need society to constrain your actions?
No, I don’t, because I first obey the law, and on top of that I further constrain myself to forgo actions I consider harmful even if they are within the law (for now).
I do think there are many people, some of whom I have personally met and wield a great deal of power and money, that are like you, and David, and Skip, willing to harm others or put them in harm’s way for profits.
I also think the vast majority of people do not even understand many of the modern sources of risk. I have read the IBC (International Building Code), it sits about 9 feet from me on my bookshelf. I also understand safety protocols in Hospitals, I understand fracture mechanics in aircraft, I understand error control in mathematical models and experimentation.
Building codes are devoted to safety, fire prevention, collapse prevention, and escape for occupants in the case of either disaster. Aircraft inspection protocols can be expensive and time consuming, but they are based on mathematical models that are intended to keep people safe and airplanes from falling out of the sky.
I do not expect 99% of the population to have the time or talent to understand the mathematical underpinning of mechanical modeling that leads to these regulations; but their lives are saved by these codes and inspections nonetheless. They protect lives by preventing lethal or crippling injuries from ever happening.
I believe, from firsthand experience with them, that many people would willingly put the lives and health of others at risk to make a profit; and I also believe that if those inspections and codes never had to be undertaken in the first place, these people would make sure any liability could not be traced back to them.
So you ask, “Do I violate people’s Rights on a regular basis?” The answer is that if it weren’t for the law, and trained experts, engineers, medical researchers and doctors and chemists determining what was actually harmful, then I might well do that out of ignorance and a mistaken or naive belief that my actions were harmless when they were not.
But more importantly, I believe there are many that would violate MY rights if they were not constrained by law; not “many” in the sense of a large percentage of people, but “many” in the sense of tens of millions out of a population of hundreds of millions.
I am reality based, Bron. Intent matters, to an extent, but even unintentional harm due to ignorance of danger remains harm and can be lethal. Your willingness to be held accountable makes no difference if the damage you cause is irreversible or far exceeds everything you will ever earn in your life. Your true belief that a jumbo paper clip was a good substitute for a cracked retention pin, when that belief can result in the death of 120 passengers, is not something you can pay back.
Regulations protect people and their rights, including the “derived” rights of safety in buildings, transportation, food, medicine, and work places that regulations provide and are traced back to the Constitution as within the scope of what Society can regulate.
Your desire to violate regulations is a desire to violate Rights, to endanger others without their permission or knowledge, or subjugate them, or coerce them to abide by your rules or accept responsibility under threat of poverty and destitution, all in order to save yourself time or money or irritation or paperwork.
I think you just don’t give a crap about strangers, Bron, whether they live or die or exist in pain and misery. You only care about yourself. That makes you an outlier in Society, and one of the people we are forced to regulate in order to preserve life and prevent pain and misery.
this is the 1600th comment. gotta be some kind of record.
from what i’ve read of Gene’s comments on socio-economics there are several european countries that do quite well using those economic ideas.
and from what i’ve read on the ideas about von mises and the austrian school of economics even austria doesn’t use them.
Gene,
I guess I am one of those frauds hskiprob speaks about or am I a socialistic fascist pig that he refers to?
By the way, your “paper” probably read better in the original crayon draft.
Bad news, Skip. I’ve read your paper. It was junk then. It’s junk now.
Is that the best you’ve got, Skippy?
Turns out you’re not very good at stand up comedy, but good for you for trying.
First, yeah, I was taught early on that words mean something and not just what I want to think they mean if it’s convenient to my argument. Too bad you missed that day of class and insist on making up your own definitions for words and concepts you don’t understand well enough to argue. “Tell us the similarities and differences between socialism, communism and fascism so we can get on with this debate.” I’ve done so many times before in this forum so if you weren’t paying attention I’m not going to repeat them because you didn’t do your homework.
Secondly, I’ve read and – better yet – understood Rand’s work. That’s why I can dismantle it so easily. Just so, I’ve also explained what I think and in great depth here (“What Makes A Good Law, What Makes A Bad Law?” to give one example among many and an example where Objectivism was thoroughly dismantled in the comments section by myself and others). And I think you’re doing a bit of projecting in the psychological sense. You are the one with the substandard understanding of the topic. If you weren’t, you’d realize that “Objectivism” and “scientific objectivity” are not the same thing. Objectivism is a pseudo-philosophy developed by a woman who was demonstrably a sociopath by multiple medical diagnostic criteria. Selfishness is not a virtue and the individual is not the end all be all of society. Objectivism is a fantasy held by people who labor under the delusion that they are the center of the universe. It appeals to a couple of kinds of people: the disaffected adolescent (who usually outgrows it), the emotionally or logically stunted (who didn’t outgrow it), the philosophically challenged who cannot understand the fundamental flaws underpinning Rand’s monstrosity because they stopped reading when they found out they were all that is important and/or other proper sociopaths and/or psychopaths. It is devoid of any substantive merit as it is based upon egotism and the idea that selfishness is a virtue to create a perfect storm of amorality that’s really just an excuse for bad behavior. It is predicated upon an illusory understanding of human nature. Contrast this to scientific objectivity is a useful utilitarian method of letting objective measurements and observations define reality instead of the solipsism of thinking reality is a construct of your own mind and is a prime basis of the scientific method (which when applied to legalism becomes the technocratic approach to legalism). Scientific objectivity is widely valued. Objectivism? Not so much. The only people who don’t think Objectivists and Objectivism suck are other Objectivists. Everyone else realizes they are selfish to the core and will say damn near anything to justify their their bad behavior towards others under the false flag of “rational self-interest”. It is the intellectual (and spiritual and philosophical) equivalent of having the crabs and being proud of it. Selfishness my be a form of self-interest, but to the extremes of Objectivism, it is corrosive to society and ultimately anything but rational. John Galt is a fictional character for a reason. No one “made themselves” without the help of society unless they are a self-made hunter-gatherer living a palaeolithic lifestyle. Every single successful person in the world? Had help. If they say they didn’t? They are either delusional, a liar, or both.
Thirdly, no one has discounted the desire to survive, but you have fun running off on that tangent.
Lastly, fraud? Why I might be upset if your opinion of me mattered to anyone but you and I wasn’t laughing so hard at the notion of a pseudo-intellectual Objectivist who doesn’t even know the proper meaning of the words he uses and has logic skills that makes an alligator look like Aristotle calling me a fraud.
Skippy.
You’re funny when you’re petulant.
What if you don’t think you made a mistake? Hm? The process is called “adversarial” for a reason: it has adverse parties who often are genuine in their reasons for maintaining an adverse position.
The utterly wrong assumption that all are good (or even simply competent) actors rears its ugly head again.
TONY C:
“if your shed catches fire because it isn’t up to code and burns down your neighbor’s house, or the neighborhood, you don’t want us to hold you liable.”
not hardly, if my mistake causes harm, then I should be held responsible. You think I am a one way highway.
I am sort of curious as to why you think I want to run around violating people’s rights when all that would mean is that they can do the same to me.
Do you violate people’s rights on a regular basis and need society to constrain your actions?
Are you a child? You need mommy and daddy around so you wont put your hand in the cookie jar?
Semantic is not the equivalent of wrong, oh logically challenged Skippy.
The meaning of words is critical to the foundation of any argument.
That you don’t know the proper meanings of the words you use is your failing in argumentation, not mine. I have noticed an interesting phenomenon though. Without common meanings, arguments devolve into nonsense. You can call a trout an airplane, but that does not mean it can fly. Objectivists, despite claiming to be intimately acquainted with the Law of Identity, are some of the absolute worst about both not knowing the meanings of the words they use and/or making up definitions to suit their conclusions (a gross exercise in both ignorance and outcome determinism). Perhaps it’s all the egotism of worshiping the self as the prime arbiter of reality that causes this mental/emotional/logical defect. Language (including the specialty language of mathematics) is the mother of not just all sciences, but of all civilization as well. Without proper communication, there could be no cooperation. And by proper I mean conveying information in an accurate and common parlance. A solid foundation in language and linguistics is critical for building rhetoric and its predicate logics. Here’s a hint: next time you run in to a word you don’t understand, try researching its meaning instead of making one up that suits you. It’ll take a bit of time and effort, but it’ll keep you from looking like a buffoon who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
Or maybe not.
When your dogma makes you the prime object, it makes it easier to miss objective reality which exists independent of your own mind. Despite Descartes’ brilliance, in the end solipsism is ultimately a dead end street where reality is an illusion created by the individualized perceptions of the individual. While the statement “reality is a state of mind” is an interesting philosophical proposition, epistemologically speaking it is a dead end street. There is no more solipsistic worldview than the pseudo-philosophy of Objectivism with its focus on the self being all. Philosophically, it’s a dog chasing its own tail to justify wanting the tail in the first place. Pragmatically and as a utilitarian proposition, it is simply a garbage rationalization for selfishness which is pretty much universally considered a bad behavior by everyone other than Objectivists.
Words have meaning and you don’t get to decide what they mean to suit your desires. They mean what all users of a common language collectively decide they mean. If (and when) that meaning does not suit your dogma?
Well that’s just too bad now, isn’t it.
Gene H.
First, please reread you reply of 5:15 Pm today. It literally took you a few hundred words to tell us what we were taught in 6th grade. That the definition of words and terms is important in a debate.
Yet you do not, as always, provide us with the definitions that can be based on anything, anyone has ever defined in the past. It’s always just criticism, without any constructive opinion as to what you believe. Tell us the similarities and differences between socialism, communism and fascism so we can get on with this debate. I have read many many opinions, so I am quite sure that what ever you throw at me, I will be able to at least understand your point of view. Hopefully, it will not take you as many words as your last rant.
Secondly, your lack of understand of why objectivism, that of being objective, is considered by millions to be much better than being subjective, ones opinion based on inconclusive evidence, is both interesting and revealing. You do understand, that is the term (objective) in which Rand, coined the term objectivism after. Sixty percent of society doesn’t know who Rand is, so they don’t count, so there are a lot of very knowledgeable people who disagree with your unconstructive ranting.
Ignoring the human trait of being concerned with one self preservation and interest, is as ignorant as believing that just because someone does have concern for their own self preservation and interest, they therefore do not care about others enough to assist them in their needs. You erroneously equate objectivism with sociopathic behavior and that lead me to believe both that you have not read Rand in depth, and thus are a fraud and deceiver. Pretending to take an adversarial position against something you are not fully knowledgeable about is intellectual fraud. Perhaps you don’t learn that in 6th grade.
It is much easier to care for others when you can first care for yourself, without having to deprive others of their unalienable rights; as our rule of law is supposed to provide. It’s kind of that simply Gene, and what Rand and the libertarian movement are trying to teach. We must go into sociology, psychology, economics and jurisprudence to fully explain all the concepts, but that has been done by more people than one can read in a life time. Sadly most are just not willing to take the time and effort and instead make up rants and unwarranted criticism. Gene, you are not the first person, I believe to be a fraud, I’ve uncovered on the web. I must say though, that you are good at it.
Gene H. Additionally you suggested in the same reply that I and other objectivists created definitions based on our bias rather than research them.
In my paper, I give well written third party sites for each word defined and told you in detail I been researching these terms for over 35 years. I was a Democrat when I first started determining my understandings back in the late 1970s of the various words and terms, so most of the ideas I had were before I became a libertarian. That pretty much calls out you poor understanding of my motives, but once again shows your devious motives and fraud because I’ve also given you these facts already except for that of being a democrat.
I’ve also gone into detail as to how and why I have come to the opinions I have on the definitions of the various words and terms in the paper. I just wanted to understand in total detail what all the people were arguing about.
I will tell you again, so perhaps it will some day sink in. I came up with the concepts on the differences between socialism, fascism and communism based on a wide variety of opinions of others. The only thing I did was to segregate them into the accounting type categories which seems to work out excellent. I don’t expect you to agree with me Gene, because you have some pretty far fetched ideas about socio-economics, that have never been shown to work but I an still willing to listen and read as I do everyone of your posts. Why I’ve done it is anther question, because I have not learned anything significant from you. You never answer my questions so I’ve beating my head against the wall. Now I just want to show others why I think your a fraud.
I even asked for assistance of any constructive criticism I could get. Not one socialist fascist pig on this site would even provide one constructive criticism which is typical of the many ignorant fascist pigs I’ve met in my life. Not even a question.
Most of the prominent figures throughout history who have embraced the various statist philosophies have always been known to be either frauds or ignorant by those with any level of intellectual honesty.
Rand knew the communists from her homeland were frauds, Bastiat knew Marx was a fraud. Lindberger knew FDR was a fraud. Von Mises knew Keynes was a fraud and I know the people who are frauds on this site and quite honestly I can’t believe continues to allow you to be subscribed.
Tony,
I just returned from a trip to Norway and I was certainly surprised. $11 beer and $50 pizza! $5 one-way subway ride and $250,000 Porsche 911. And everyone I spoke to was disgusted with the very long wait times for healthcare. If you have a broken leg they will see you immediately, but need and MRI? See you in 6 months. If you are a high earner, your effective tax rate is about 50% and you will pay about $2500 per month for a 700 square foot apartment.
Comment by Norwegian on October 04, 2010 @ 4:19 am
A bit of a late comment here, but…You are not considering that Norway is what they call a high-tax, high deductions system. There are a large number of deductions available. Interest on your mortgage, having kids, kindergarden, etc, etc. A standard 36% deduction on personal income.
Numbers from the Norwegian IRS show that the actual tax paid by Norwegians are 9% -32 % total, after all the deductions. With a 25% average income tax. They additionally have some of the highest wages in the world.
Of course, the important thing about taxes is not how much you pay, but if you feel you are getting your moneys worth.
Norway’s economy remains an essentially mixed one, with economic policies and, particularly, income distribution patterns strongly influenced by government intervention. There is still a very significant state ownership component in petroleum, telecommunications, and commercial banking. The state extensively subsidizes agriculture, fishing, some large manufacturing companies, and remote northern and mountainous regions with scarce resources. An extensive government welfare system redistributing incomes through taxes remains at the core of the Norwegian economic model. The government also heavily stresses curbing unemployment and maintaining economic opportunities in remote and undeveloped areas. The private sector dominates in industries such as shipping, services outside the banking sector, and small to medium-scale manufacturing facilities. In 1999, the contribution of the private sector in GDP was one of the lowest in western Europe, at just 48.5 percent, compared to an average of 56.6 percent. There is indeed some political discussion about the future reduction of public sector ownership, and a government privatization program has been set up.
The most significant privatization deals in Norway by 2000 were probably the sale of 21 percent of the stock of the state-owned Telenor telecommunications firm, the sale of 91 percent of the equity of the state-controlled Christiania Bank (Kreditkassen) to Swedish-Finnish banking operation MeritaNordbanken, and the planned partial privatization of the government-owned oil giant Statoil. The Labor Party’s plan involves the privatization of about one-third of Statoil, about 10 percent via the stock markets and about 20 percent through alliances with foreign companies, most likely with large western European utilities like Ruhrgas of Germany or Gaz de France. Norway may also offer foreign investors over half of the State Direct Financial Interest fields contributing for some 40 percent of the offshore petroleum production in the country. In 1999, Statoil was roughly estimated to be worth about 120 billion Norwegian kroner but it may be more highly valued in the future if international oil prices remain higher than the level they were at in 1999. Norsk Hydro, the second large oil company in which the government also has a controlling share, is reckoned to be worth considerably less than Statoil. The government, however, seems determined to keep the most profitable oil fields under its control.
Although a social welfare economy, Norway’s tax rates are generally lower than the EU average. Companies and their branches are subject to both income and capital tax. Income tax of 28 percent applies to all forms of income of the corporate bodies and all other entities liable to taxation. The value-added tax (VAT) was increased to a 24 percent rate as of 1 January 2001, and an 11 percent dividend tax for shareholders may be introduced in 2002 to support generous domestic welfare spending. Norway has no foreign debt and is a major net external creditor.
Read more: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Europe/Norway-POLITICS-GOVERNMENT-AND-TAXATION.html#ixzz2mLi41o4k
As you can see Tony, It’s not that simple and there are underlying problems in any fascist system. Norway however, has done one of the best jobs on the planet in working with what they have and lucky for them they have a plethora of natural resources and a small population.
Bron says: I want to build a shed in my backyard without having to get a building permit and complying with the Corps of Engineers. And do many other things without government watching me and forcing me to do things which are not in my best interest.
Okay, you just hold in disdain the property of others and the safety of others, and you don’t want us to punish you for diminishing their value, or endangering your own children or employees or guests that may be on your property; if your shed catches fire because it isn’t up to code and burns down your neighbor’s house, or the neighborhood, you don’t want us to hold you liable. You want to oppress others, rob others, and harm others without consequence; and you want us to grant you that “Right” up front.
Bron quotes an idiot: “The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.”
That is false in its entirety, because it is a self-defeating proposition. If I have a Right to act X that is to be free from Interference by other men, what happens if a man interferes with that Right? Say I have a Right to pan for gold in a public stream. A big bad group of men with a reputation for lethal violence decides to patrol that stream, armed, and threatens to kill anybody that tries to pan it. Who will stop them? What good is my Right?
Are other people obligated to help me secure my Right? If they are not obligated, because they have the Right to their own life and cannot be coerced, what good is my Right?
A Right is not a “moral sanction” that “imposes no obligations on his neighbors;” as Rand claims. That is an idiotic claim.
If your neighbors are not obligated to protect and secure your Rights, they are meaningless. If your neighbors are not obligated to punish people for violating your rights, your rights are meaningless.
There are no Rights without the obligation to honor Rights, and to punish those that violate Rights.
This is just one more example of Rand trying to redefine what a Right is in order to support her view that Selfishness can be a virtue. It is not, and never will be, a virtue.
Skip says: All political models, that I’ve ever studied, by their very nature are antithetical,
Merriam Webster: antithetical: being in direct and unequivocal opposition.
So, “antithetical” to what, exactly?
Skip says: Why don’t you and Tony C. just pick and choose which rights I have and which rights I should not have.
I decline, it is not my place to do that, outside of the context of a vote by Society at large, of which I am a member.
“There are obvious reasons why the socialist/fascist model doesn’t work”
The main one being there is no such thing as “the socialist/fascist model”, Skippy. No matter how many times you repeat that lie, they are antithetical political models and divergent economic models. Conflation and ignorance on your part will never make them the same.
Gene H. All political models, that I’ve ever studies, by their very nature are antithetical, as I’ve noted on numerous occasions. Divergent? Looked up divergent and couldn’t find any economic model of that name, so I’m not sure what you mean by this. Please explain.
You don’t like my definitions even though I’ve pointed out factual proof of what socialists called themselves in the 20th century and what political policies they embrace. I’ve even noted that both fascists and communists embrace many of the same policies as socialists do. The government is going to help everyone get a little piece of the pie. I get the principle. Cute, but extremely naïve. So let’s continue to argue semantics, because obviously you cannot logically argue anything else and always misdirect as a means to “divert” back to this argument when challenged.
Why don’t you and Tony C. just pick and choose which rights I have and which rights I should not have. I trust you as much as I trust the current __________ of politicians and Judges. You cannot possibly do any worse job than the last two fellows. What is a group of pigs called. Vultures would be a better name but a flock just doesn’t note my true grading of their competency. Whores is the best name. for them. A bordello of whores.
Bron,
First, learn what “argument by analogy” means.
Second, you read, but you do not understand. I do not “argue here everyday that society should cater to individual whim and pay for it too”. I want an Aston-Martin Vanquish and I don’t expect society to buy one for me. However, if I am too sick to work, I expect society – especially in the wealthiest nation on Earth – to make sure I don’t have to choose between food and a place to live or medicine. I would expect society to do that for anyone in that position. The true measure of a society is how it cares for its weakest members, not who has the biggest
dickbank account balance.I argue that society should do what is necessary to maintain a healthy and stable society that does everything possible to ensure justice, equality and a level playing field instead of catering to individual profit motives and seemingly unlimited greed of the monied corporatist oligarchy and individuals who base their ethos on selfishness as a virtue.Gene H:
“Society is real, but it cannot cater to every individual’s whim.”
You argue here everyday that society should cater to individual whim and pay for it too.