Biden to Propose New Minimum Tax on Wealthiest Americans

[LittleDixie]

Both Clintons are actually remarkably honest as politicians go.

lol

 

[LittleDixie]

Rand fancied herself a philosopher, but she wasn't.

Ok.

She had your number, though.

 

[pecksniff]

Ok.

She had your number, though.

No, yours, if you're an objectivist.

[TR]
[TD]Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society… To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]—Gore Vidal, Esquire Magazine, 1961[/TD]
[/TR]


[TR]
[TD]“”Conspicuous by their absence from Rand's list of virtues are the "virtues of benevolence," such as kindness, charity, generosity, and forgiveness.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]—Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1][/TD]
[/TR]

Objectivism is a peculiar philosophy formulated by novelist Ayn Rand. It sports a range of convoluted tenets, but is most infamous for redefining greed as the prime moral virtue — and, to take things even further, literally redefining altruism as evil. It's so terrible that even Conservapedia opposes it (though the page mostly focuses on Rand being an atheist).[2] The name "objectivism" was chosen because, as Rand was the single smartest person in the history of the world, anything she said had to be "objective".[note 1]

As one might imagine, objectivism is very popular amongst those who already hold a rather egocentric view of the world. It lets them say, "Hey, I'm not being a selfish jerk, I'm following a philosophy!". Of course, this incredibly short-sighted and narrow outlook — only seeking short-term gains no matter the cost to everyone else — will not even maximize long-term individual gains (let alone short- or long-term societal gain).

For obvious reasons, objectivism has been met with a hilariously lackluster reception from academia. When they bother to comment on it at all, academic philosophers usually dismiss it as a rather juvenile imitation of a real philosophy. It is nevertheless very popular (a given with any theory that lends credibility to overtly cultivating the worst of self-congratulating egoism) and often informs the beliefs of a great many libertarians and other assorted whackjobs.[note 2] Although objectivism shares some beliefs with Conservatism, it has not had much influence on that branch of politics due to its radical, anti-traditional, atheist nature.[note 3]

Actually, Rand's initial inclination was to call it "existentialism" -- but that name was already taken by an entirely different school of thought. But that should give you some idea of the scale of her arrogance.

 

[LittleDixie]

Ah yes, more of your rational wiki pre-packaged opinions.

You should think for yourself more.

 

[LittleDixie]

Objectivism is a peculiar philosophy formulated by novelist Ayn Rand. It sports a range of convoluted tenets, but is most infamous for redefining greed as the prime moral virtue — and, to take things even further, literally redefining altruism as evil.

"Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility. Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial progress, objective (as opposed to “progressive” or faith-based) education, romantic art—and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason. Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends." https://theobjectivestandard.com/what-is-objectivism/

The name "objectivism" was chosen because, as Rand was the single smartest person in the history of the world, anything she said had to be "objective".

This is a lie.

"Objectivism holds that reality is an absolute—that facts are facts, regardless of anyone’s hopes, fears, or desires. There is a world independent of our minds to which our thinking must correspond if our ideas are to be true and therefore of practical use in living our lives, pursuing our values, and protecting our rights.

Thus, Objectivism rejects the idea that reality is ultimately determined by personal opinion or social convention or “divine decree.” An individual’s ideas or beliefs do not make reality what it is, nor can they directly change anything about it; they either correspond to the facts of reality, or they do not. A person might think that the sun revolves around the earth (as some people do); that does not make it so.

Likewise, the accepted ideas or norms of a society or culture have no effect on the nature of reality; they either comport with the facts of reality, or they do not. Some cultures maintain that the earth is flat, that slavery is good, and that women are mentally inferior to men. Such beliefs do not alter the nature of what is; they contradict it; they are false." https://theobjectivestandard.com/what-is-objectivism/

 

[pecksniff]

Ah yes, more of your rational wiki pre-packaged opinions.

You should think for yourself more.

Thinking for yourself is only worth doing if you use reason, which is what RationalWiki is all about. Without reason, you drive into a ditch, like you always do.

 

[pecksniff]

"Objectivism holds that reality is an absolute—that facts are facts, regardless of anyone’s hopes, fears, or desires.

That is materialism. It did not need a new name.

 

[LittleDixie]

No, look up the definition to materialism.

 

[pecksniff]

Materialism:

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds matter to be the fundamental substance in nature, and all things, including mental states and consciousness, are results of material interactions. According to philosophical materialism, mind and consciousness are by-products or epiphenomena of material processes (such as the biochemistry of the human brain and nervous system), without which they cannot exist. This concept directly contrasts with idealism, where mind and consciousness are first-order realities to which matter is subject and material interactions are secondary.

Materialism is closely related to physicalism—the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the theories of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter (e.g. spacetime, physical energies and forces, and dark matter). Thus, the term physicalism is preferred over materialism by some, while others use the terms as if they were synonymous.

Philosophies contradictory to materialism or physicalism include idealism, pluralism, dualism, panpsychism, and other forms of monism.

Rand added nothing worth saying to that. All she has to say that matters is in ethics and politics.

Not economics. Rand fancied herself a philosopher, but she never fancied herself an economist -- she assumed the superior efficiency of a free-market system, but never offered any actual arguments for it -- her preference for a market economy was rooted entirely in her ethical system.

 

[BluesDriver66]

Hillary the most qualified presidential candidate in history? LMFAO The most corrupt and ethically challenged more like it. She couldn’t even win with a corrupt Obama DOJ, NSA and FBI lobbying for her while fabricating the Steele dossier. Democrats gave it their best shot, they had a piece of shit for candidate.

There's a reason it was in quotes. Hillary may be as crooked as a dog's hind leg but at least she's not a blithering idiot. Republicans are nothing more than knuckle dragging, race baiting, anti-science, corporate boot lickers. Nothing to be proud about.

 

[pecksniff]

There's a reason it was in quotes. Hillary may be as crooked as a dog's hind leg but at least she's not a blithering idiot. Republicans are nothing more than knuckle dragging, race baiting, anti-science, corporate boot lickers. Nothing to be proud about.

No, that's the Republican voters. Many of their leaders qualify as Evil Geniuses. Trump does not so qualify, of course, and neither did Reagan or either Bush -- but Cheney did.

 

[BluesDriver66]

Both Clintons are actually remarkably honest as politicians go.

They never lie unless it's absolutely convenient.



"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Bill



“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Hillary

 

[BluesDriver66]

So who you gonna vote for? The Socialists?

I don’t vote. Two reasons. Two reasons I don’t vote: first of all, it’s meaningless. This country was bought and sold and paid for a long time ago. The shit they shuffle around every four years doesn’t mean a fuckin’ thing. And secondly, I don’t vote ’cause I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around. I know, they say, they say: “well if you don’t vote you have no right to complain”. But where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent people, and they get into office and screw everything up, well you are responsible for what they have done, YOU caused the problem, you voted them in, you have no right to complain. I on the other hand, who did not vote, WHO DID NOT VOTE. Who in fact did not even leave the house on election-day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done, and have every RIGHT to complain as loud as I want, about the mess YOU created, that I had nothing to do with. So I know that a little later on this year, you’re going to have another one of those really swell presidential elections that you like so much. You enjoy yourselves. It will be a lot of fun. I’m sure as soon as the election is over, your country will “improve” immediately. As for me, I’ll be home on that day, doing essentially the same thing as you, the only difference is, when I get finished masturbating, I’m going to have a little something to show for it folks.

George Carlin

 

[pecksniff]

The Dems and the Pubs are both owned by the corporations. The difference is that the Dems are not wholly owned.

Half a loaf is better than none.

 

[pecksniff]

I don’t vote. Two reasons. Two reasons I don’t vote: first of all, it’s meaningless. This country was bought and sold and paid for a long time ago. The shit they shuffle around every four years doesn’t mean a fuckin’ thing. And secondly, I don’t vote ’cause I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around. I know, they say, they say: “well if you don’t vote you have no right to complain”. But where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent people, and they get into office and screw everything up, well you are responsible for what they have done, YOU caused the problem, you voted them in, you have no right to complain. I on the other hand, who did not vote, WHO DID NOT VOTE. Who in fact did not even leave the house on election-day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done, and have every RIGHT to complain as loud as I want, about the mess YOU created, that I had nothing to do with. So I know that a little later on this year, you’re going to have another one of those really swell presidential elections that you like so much. You enjoy yourselves. It will be a lot of fun. I’m sure as soon as the election is over, your country will “improve” immediately. As for me, I’ll be home on that day, doing essentially the same thing as you, the only difference is, when I get finished masturbating, I’m going to have a little something to show for it folks.

George Carlin

You'll dig this.

 

[BluesDriver66]

The Dems and the Pubs are both owned by the corporations. The difference is that the Dems are not wholly owned.

Half a loaf is better than none.

Crumbs do not equal half a loaf. The Democrats are wholly owned. Don't kid yourself. You are suffering from an illusion of choice.


Nancy Pelosi is the current Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. Nancy Pelosi’s Net Worth is $135 Million US Dollars. For 33 years, Nancy Speaker Pelosi has represented San Francisco, California’s 12th District, in Congress. With a huge wealth and enormous business income, Nancy Pelosi is one of the richest politicians in the United States. Nancy Pelosi also has several financial interests in the Wall Street. With the help of her rich donors, Nancy Pelosi has built a financial empire that can withstand any economic crisis.

Top Nancy Pelosi Aide Privately Tells Insurance Executives Not to Worry About Democrats Pushing “Medicare for All”
https://theintercept.com/2019/02/05/nancy-pelosi-medicare-for-all/

Democratic Platform Nixes ‘Medicare For All’ ​

The Democratic Party platform aligns with Joe Biden's campaign promises, but almost 400 delegates to the convention wanted the promise of "Medicare for All" included. Legalizing marijuana is also not in the platform.
https://khn.org/morning-breakout/democratic-platform-nixes-medicare-for-all/

 

[pecksniff]

Then why do the Dems and the Pubs fight each other so fiercely? I do not believe for a moment they are secretly in cahoots, conspiring with each other behind the scenes to give us an "illusion of choice."

 

[BluesDriver66]

The same reasons two street walking prostitutes will fight each other over a popular corner in the tender lion district. They're whores. That's what they do.

 

[Champakian]

Then why do the Dems and the Pubs fight each other so fiercely? I do not believe for a moment they are secretly in cahoots, conspiring with each other behind the scenes to give us an "illusion of choice."

Power

But, then, you knew that.

In every coin flip, there is something riding on "heads or tails."

 

[Chobham]

The "Income Tax" was sold to the people as, "We're only going to tax the ultra wealthy and only 3%." That lasted 4 years before the income threshold dropped and the percentage started going up. Anyone that believes that the same won't happen with this latest 'idea' is delusional.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P J O'Rourke

 

[LittleDixie]

Materialism:


Rand added nothing worth saying to that. All she has to say that matters is in ethics and politics.

Not economics. Rand fancied herself a philosopher, but she never fancied herself an economist -- she assumed the superior efficiency of a free-market system, but never offered any actual arguments for it -- her preference for a market economy was rooted entirely in her ethical system.

I think you are missing the point. The reason it is called objectivism is because our subjective view of the world is irrelevant. How we think and feel about something is a separate issue than what IS. Objectivism is saying that:

"An individual’s ideas or beliefs do not make reality what it is, nor can they directly change anything about it; they either correspond to the facts of reality, or they do not."

That is not materialism.

I think you're ignorant on Ayn Rand's body of work and life story. That's not a dig, I just don't think you're read or listened to her stuff - I think you've read and listened to people who are interpreting her stuff through their own lens. Layering their subjectivity down as a foundation to build your own subjectivity on top of.

 

[Champakian]

We know the effect of taxes.
We use sin taxes to reduce certain activities/substances.
It takes no great extrapolation to conclude that taxing wealth reduces wealth.
Reduced wealth leads to reduced investment* outside of than government investment.
Investment outside of government has to pick winners to be viable.
Government investment just picks "winners" where
viability is just an un-required option...



* I.e., reduced tax income due to reduced profits.

 

[Chobham]

We know the effect of taxes.
We use sin taxes to reduce certain activities/substances.
It takes no great extrapolation to conclude that taxing wealth reduces wealth.
Reduced wealth leads to reduced investment* outside of than government investment.
Investment outside of government has to pick winners to be viable.
Government investment just picks "winners" where
viability is just an un-required option...



* I.e., reduced tax income due to reduced profits.

Or to put it another way for every action there is a reaction. The law of unintended consequences. I don't know if you've been following what's going on with out Northern neighbor but Canadians are moving their money out of the country as fast as is possible as a reaction to Soy Boy's bank account confiscations. The Alberta seperation movement is gaining ground. It's still a minority but not anywhere as 'minor' as it was 12 months ago.

 

[Champakian]

People without the means to flee
assume that wealth cannot flee
when they engage in envy taxation.

 

[Chobham]

A tax code based on unrealized gains is a tax code based on someones imagination. Welcome to Fantasy Land.