Moderator: Community Team
Juan_Bottom wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Come on BBS and Saxi, you're just being too detail-oriented.
Ayn Rand clearly wrote "John Galt said, 'I hate sociale security.'" Rand spelled the word "social" incorrectly, which should not make JB wrong.
Ok, but what's a "moocher?" Or a "looter?" Or a "parasite?"
thegreekdog wrote:If I understand social security, and I think I do, a person contributes money to a fund which the government holds. At the end of a certain period of time, the money is released in increments to the person who contributed the money.
So, if that is the definition of a parasite, I suppose I'm mooching off of my local bank.
Juan_Bottom wrote:thegreekdog wrote:If I understand social security, and I think I do, a person contributes money to a fund which the government holds. At the end of a certain period of time, the money is released in increments to the person who contributed the money.
So, if that is the definition of a parasite, I suppose I'm mooching off of my local bank.
To be 100% honest, I read her book and I'm not all-together clear on her use of the word "Parasite." I think that it means anyone who accepts or lives on money that was redistributed to them. But again, I'm not for certain if her use of the word was limited to that. A "looter" is someone who takes your money with the threat of force, and a "moocher" is someone who doesn't work for a living, but instead relies on welfare and such. Ayn Rand believed that Social Security was wealth redistribution because when it went into effect, the elderly who were receiving payments hadn't hardly payed anything in. They were living off of the labor of the younger generations.
I'm sorry it's just that as an admitted Libertarian, I had assumed erroneously that you had read Atlas Shrugged. Weirdos out here love the book. So I apologize for that.
Her counselor and law firm affirm that they had to convince her to accept Social Security and Medicaid. But again I stress that she still accepted Social Security and Medicaid. I've noticed that everyone is taking exception to the fact that she accepted Social Security and they're ignoring my point that she also applied for Medicaid under a fake name.
And again, that's not me attempting to dismantle her philosophy. That's another argument entirely. Yeah I do think Libertarianism is nonsense and dangerous, but that's a whole other discussion. People need to stop worshiping Rand as Jesus-the-sequel who also hated the poor and accept that she was inherently fallible because she was human.
For example,
Thomas Jefferson has been a great influence on me. I believe him to be a great hero. I mean, just a mountain of a man. I love to read everything that he wrote, even the biography of his life. Did you know that he kept a lock of his wife's hair until he died? He couldn't bring him self to ever marry again after she died. That's beautiful and powerful and sad.
But I can accept that he was also a hypocrite and darkly ill-informed when it came to Africans. He railed against slavery but refused to free his slaves, even upon death. And he once wrote that slaves smell because half of their body waste emptied out through their sweat.
Even Marcus Aurelius, who's my favorite philosopher, was also a terrifying butcher. Men are men.
PhatScotty wrote:A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits but does not pay any money into the pot, doesn't have any skin in the game. This does not include people who really need the help or fall on hard times or have emergencies
Juan_Bottom wrote:Her counselor and law firm affirm that they had to convince her to accept Social Security and Medicaid. But again I stress that she still accepted Social Security and Medicaid.
saxitoxin wrote:Why does Mitt Romney hate freedom?
Republicans crush democracy, rig votes at their own convention. The future of America under Romney?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Why does Mitt Romney hate freedom?
Republicans crush democracy, rig votes at their own convention. The future of America under Romney?
i don't even know what's going on here. link or explain?
john9blue wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Why does Mitt Romney hate freedom?
Republicans crush democracy, rig votes at their own convention. The future of America under Romney?
i don't even know what's going on here. link or explain?
saxitoxin wrote:john9blue wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Why does Mitt Romney hate freedom?
Republicans crush democracy, rig votes at their own convention. The future of America under Romney?
i don't even know what's going on here. link or explain?
There was a motion to modify the rules of future National Conventions to prohibit any candidates like Ron Paul from seeking delegates so that the Republican Party could insulate itself from insurgencies in the future. It was put to a voice vote and Boehner, as chair, said the yes votes won (you can be the judge from the video). There was a call for a division of the house (roll call vote), Boehner didn't "hear" it and declared the resolution was tabled (it can't be taken up again until the next convention in 2016 after Paul-like delegates have been excluded under the new rule) "without objection."
The Republican Party is secure! Paul is now drop-kicked in the trash bin of history with Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan and John B. Anderson. In four years people will be like "remember that one fellow, Don whasshisanme? Don Paul, I think?"This Episode Sponsored by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan - Keeping Democracy Safe from Democracy
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:Any Ron Paul supporter that votes for Romney, or any Republican, now, is no true libertarian/constitutionalist/anything-other-than-mainstream-Republican.
Yesterday's debacle proved that the "change the party from within strategy" simply won't work. There is too much resistance by the establishment and too many obstacles being set up.
You must be voting for Gary Johnson after this, surely. Right?
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:Hmm, I haven't heard anything about Trump recently (except for something about Twitter and Huffington).
GreecePwns wrote:Any Ron Paul supporter that votes for Romney, or any Republican, now, is no true libertarian/constitutionalist/anything-other-than-mainstream-Republican.
Yesterday's debacle proved that the "change the party from within strategy" simply won't work. There is too much resistance by the establishment and too many obstacles being set up.
You must be voting for Gary Johnson after this, surely. Right?
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
Phatscotty wrote:A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits but does not pay any money into the pot, doesn't have any skin in the game.
Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits but does not pay any money into the pot, doesn't have any skin in the game.
Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break, you're a smart businessman but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a parasite/leech/moocher?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits but does not pay any money into the pot, doesn't have any skin in the game.
Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break, you're a smart businessman but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a parasite/leech/moocher?
because businessmen contribute to their society.
Woodruff wrote:john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits but does not pay any money into the pot, doesn't have any skin in the game.
Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break, you're a smart businessman but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a parasite/leech/moocher?
because businessmen contribute to their society.
They do? Solely because of their position as a businessman? You sure you want to stand by that statement?
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Woodruff wrote:john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits but does not pay any money into the pot, doesn't have any skin in the game.
Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break, you're a smart businessman but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a parasite/leech/moocher?
because businessmen contribute to their society.
They do? Solely because of their position as a businessman? You sure you want to stand by that statement?
john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:john9blue wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:A parasite/leech/moocher is someone who receives benefits but does not pay any money into the pot, doesn't have any skin in the game.
Why is it that if you take advantage of a corporate tax break, you're a smart businessman but if you take advantage of something so you don't go hungry, you're a parasite/leech/moocher?
because businessmen contribute to their society.
They do? Solely because of their position as a businessman? You sure you want to stand by that statement?
obviously some detract from society more than they benefit it. but the majority of them are a positive force.
BigBallinStalin wrote:The problem with your position, "businesses still contribute to society even though they're subsidized by the government," is that you have to ask, 'from whom did they get the money?"
Government? Sure, and where'd that money come from? Current taxpayers (taxation), future taxpayers (borrowing), all users of US dollar experiencing a decrease in purchasing power (from federal reserve's lending credit into existence (monetary policy)).
So, it's a zero-sum exchange. Wealth is taken from group A and given to group B involuntarily. Group B may add some benefit to others, but Group A will never be able to benefit anyone since their wealth was taken from them. In other words, you're leaving out the nature of this exchange and the opportunity costs.
(Back on-topic: Even Ayn Rand described the industrialists/capitalists who fed on the other industries through manipulated legislation as parasitic.)
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: jonesthecurl