Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Clueless Ayn Rand Worshiping Objectivist Concerned About Wealth Inequality Doesn't Realize His Ideology Fosters It

Oh, for an honest Libertarian who would say "Yes, in Libertopia we'd have rampant quackery, organ-seizure, baby-selling, slavery in all but name - BUT THAT'S FREEDOM! ~ Seth Finkelstein, programmer and author who writes for The Guardian.

The video at the bottom of this commentary was recently included in a post about wealth inequality in the United States on the ironically titled blog "Rational Nation USA". The proprietor of this blog, Lester Nation, is an individual who believes in the greed rationalizing ideology of Ayn Rand. Given that, his including of this video in his post proves just how clueless this guy is when it comes to the end game the plutocrats who endorse Libertarianism (like the Koch Brothers) desire.

The endgame of the plutocrats; the entire goal of pushing Libertarianism and Randism on our nation is to further enrich themselves and impoverish everyone else. This is a zero-sum game and when the rich get richer we all get poorer. It doesn't have to be, but the way Libertarians play the game it is. If they were willing to pay their workers more those workers would spend that money into the economy, thus increasing demand and benefiting the "job creators". Instead they seek to pay the workers as little as possible, thus decreasing demand.

Libertarians say economics isn't a zero-sum game, but that is only true when the economy is growing. The economy only grows when the workers have money to spend; which generates demand; which grows the economy. Problem is, when the corportist and CEO class seeks to increase their wealth by paying workers less and less, this causes the economy to contract (workers have less money to spend) and then the game is zero sum (the workers can't spend unless they borrow against the equity in their home, use their credit cards, or otherwise go into debt). For the plutocrats to win the workers must lose, which they have been over the past 40 years, ever since this country adopted Reaganomics (also known as "trickle down").

But Libertarians (the true believers like Lester) fail to realize this. They think that if government simply gets out of the way the wealthy elites will (unrestrained) be able to make more money and that money will trickle down to everyone else (those who work hard). This, despite the fact that the employers seek to pay as little as possible and, without government "restraining" them, they will engage in practices that drive down wages to an even greater extent... insourcing, outsourcing (using cheap overseas labor and then importing the goods sans tariffs), anti-unionism, etc.

Question is, for how long with the citizens tolerate this inequality before they demand change? And what kind of change will they demand? That really concerns Lester. He articulates these fears in a comment to his own post as follows...

Rational Nation: How this is going to shake out is uncertain. But my money rests on serious social unrest, a serious depression, and the results will be exactly what Capitalists have railed against for years. MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL and HIGHER TAXES. (10/22/2013 at 4:56pm).

All I can say to that is... amen, Lester. I pray you are right, but I also pray the middle class isn't decimated before we reach a breaking point. BTW, by "more government control" Lester refers to more democracy. Libertarians hate democracy, as they foolishly believe the "free market" should rule, not "we the people". Me, I'm a Progressive who believes in democracy and believe that "more government control" equates to our elected representatives doing more of what we want. And, of course taxes aren't high enough (FactCheck.org and PolitiFact both confirm that taxes are at a historical low).

I think Lester is right, but unlike him I don't fear the results he predicts. I am not looking forward to a possible depression, but if the people wake up and demand more democracy, higher taxes and other economic policies that will rebuild the middle class I'd be on board with that 100 percent.

According to Thomas Jefferson, "those seeking profits, were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure". The "free market", in other words, will destroy rights in order to gain more profit... and reduce the rest of us to paupers (or vassals). A country with a large and vibrant middle class, as pointed out by Progressive talker Thom Hartmann, is not natural.

When the plutocrats rule (as the Libertarians desire) the end result is a small number of uber wealthy rulers, an equally small middle class, and a large number of working poor. "We the people" via our elected officials must create and enforce legislation and economic policies to foster and enable the existence of a middle class... this would be the government that Libertarians and Randians like Lester Nation fear and despise. These foolish individuals fail to recognize the wisdom in Jefferson's words because they have been thoroughly duped by the plutocrats.

Video Description: Video posted on the "Rational Nation" blog to complement a post by the proprietor titled "The Great American Income Shift". The video points out just how much more money the wealthy have than the rest of us (and that the inequality is significantly more than most Americans think)...

    Further Reading
  • Libertarianism Makes You Stupid by Seth Finkelstein, August 1997
  • Garbage and Gravitas... Ayn Rand was a melodramatist of the moral life: the battle is between the producer and the moochers, and it must end in life or death by Corey Robin, The Nation 5/20/2010

12 comments:

  1. The cluelessness is all yours wd. Your programming and inability to understand what rational self intetest means is your fucking problem.

    Rand is by far your intellectual superior, but that doesn't make her perfect, or her Objectivism. Thinking people realize the potential in taking a 20th century concept and analyzing it and then adapting it to 21st century realities strengthens the fiber of it's argument. But, that is too complex and above your pay grade.

    Stick with what you know best. Whatever that is.

    Cheerios old chap...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about your "programming"? As for Rand, her words speak for themselves. Calling people parasites, lice, and saying most don't deserve love... Lester must be down with that, as I've read on his blog how highly he thinks of her. Selfishness isn't a "virtue". But, according to Lester I just don't understand what it all means... I say Lester doesn't understand it.

      Delete
  2. I find value in her Objectivism and the concept of rational self interest.

    Unlike you I seperate and choose, wheread you are the package deal sort of sheeple.

    Rational Self Interest, and Selfishness as you use the word I'd not the same.

    Rand used colorful and certainly non politically correct descriptive words. Many I do not approve of or use myself, a personal choice.

    Carry on wd, surely you will continue to grow your readership with your lockstep progressive babble.

    There are many progressives worth listening to, you just don't happen to be one of them.

    Carry on...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The title of Rand's book on the subject was The Virtue of Selfishness, not the virtue of of rational self interest. They are one in the same. You can't choose to ignore the selfishness which is at the CORE of Objectivism and still call yourself a Objectivist. Lester clearly does not understand the very ideology he professes to be an adherent of! That, or he simply lies because he knows how off-putting his selfishness as a virtue beliefs are. Now, why don't you go babble elsewhere... as I'm tired of your BS spin regarding Rand.

      Delete
    2. wd, you obviously have not read much, if anything Rand wrote. That is okay, you are like most partisans.

      As for BS and spin, well Sir. with all due respect you do it well. Better than most progressives and conservatives.

      I likewise am tired of your BS Sir. We're even.

      Delete
    3. This criticism from a self-described Objectivist who wasn't even aware of Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness", let alone read it!

      Delete
  3. I have read the Virtue of Selfishness three times. It reads the same each time.

    It says you're an asshole.

    While I wouldn't go that far you certainly are a putz.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, that proves that Lester was BSing me before when he said there was a difference between "rational self interest" and selfishness. The title of Rand's book is proof that there is no difference. Also, I know full well that the book says I'm an asshole (or a parasite/leech). Because that is what Rand thought of people who were concerned for the welfare of their fellow man (she kills a bunch of innocent people in a train crash in her book "Atlas Shrugged", then pontificates on how they all deserved it for that reason). Three times read says to me that Lester strongly agrees with the sociopathic views of Rand.

      Delete
  4. Yes putz, I proudly agree with rational self interest and the virtue of selfishness, properly understood. I haven't the time or inclination to explain to you what precisely that is. You've drank the cool-aid far to long to ever understand.

    So, go live your selfless life and pontificate on your up and coming progressive blog. I'm certain you and all 15 of your members will have a grand time.

    As you continue to be both comical and full of shit I'm magnanimously going to allow you the final word.

    Good day sir, have a marvelous evening, er selfless life.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anyone who thinks Obama has met his Waterloo just because the ACA has had start up problems, is the dumbest motherfucker in the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An actual semi-intelligent comment from Steve? I thought you were purposefully avoiding submitting anything but insults? I had to publish this comment to see if it was from some other Steve with a blocked profile (as profile pictures aren't displayed under the Blogger dashboard). But no... clearly it's the same hate-filled homophobe that's infatuated with my blog for some strange reason.

      Delete
    2. Although, there is the fact that my post has nothing to do with the ACA, so who knows WHY Steve decided to comment on it????

      As for the comment of Lester, finally we get an admission that he's down with selfishness, although he adds the caveat that I don't "properly understand" his self-centered greed-based ideology. Riiiight. You just keep telling yourself these lies, Lester. No doubt you actually believe them.

      Delete

COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT. YOUR COMMENT WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED UNTIL IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE BLOG ADMINISTRATOR.

Comments from anyone of any political stripe will be published as long as they follow my expanded commenting guidelines. All comments submitted will be subjected to these guidelines, whether you read them or not.

IMPORTANT: Comments from individuals whose profiles that are set to not display will likely NOT be published (I check profile links before publishing). In addition, bloggers who attempt to spoof another blogger's ID and bloggers using "parody" IDs (i.e. "Shaw Keewee") will also likely not be published.