EU proposal to monitor "intolerant" citizens

[antikristuseke]

Here you go again, using your facts to counter populist nonsense, some people...
Edit: aimed and Dan

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by MH

Denying that national socialism has nothing to do with socialism is pure bullox.

Strasser and Röhm thought so, too - that's why they made a big career in the Third Reich...

[MH]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Strasser and Röhm thought so, too - that's why they made a big career in the Third Reich...

Had been too radical for Hitler.
Probably both of them should had seek employment in USSR.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The same people who claim that socialism is not an economic concept,

The "Miles über alles"-article, which is the same exhausting read as any boring Marxist's article (just substitute the M-words), reduces Socialism to an economic concept, which is just wrong. It's a fallacy to look at an ideology purely from an economic angle. Das Kapital for example starts as a purely economic analysis; however the social construct known as Marxism focuses on much more.

Originally Posted by Skybird

are the (left-leaning, usually) people who also reject that human rights cannot be made reasonble sense of different from understanding them on a basis of property rights that give people the right to interact with material and real-world-grounded opportunities to improve their lives in accordance with said claimed rights. Property rights, human rights as being something material?! Far to profane! It has to be idealistically, it has to be brain-heavy, it has to be felt and imagined and fantasized! But the right for free speech for example does not mean Tim has the right to yell his opinion out where ever he wants, or knocking on other people's doors and shoving it down their throats. He has the right to rent a room, invite for an assembly, refuse guests to his liking, and on that assembly then announce his opinion. He has to won the place, and he has to respect the right of others not wanting to need to care for him. He also has no right to demand the newspapers owned by Tom must print his opinion, that is not freedom of speech. He has a right to buy printing space from Tom and pay him for printing it. All this - is about opportunity and ressources Tim has the right to buy. He thus "owns" them, and within that property right he bought he has the right then to announce his opinion. In principle, it is not different with any other construction you can use to illustrate this example. Without property rights, freedom of speech means NOTHING.

Following this logic, public demonstrations should be outlawed, as the participants don't state their opinion on their own soil, but on public (collective) ground?
Regarding the shoving opinions in someone's face, that's why we have in Germany the de-facto right of "negative freedom of speech", or regarding the wording of our own constitution: "negative freedom of opinion" and "negative freedom of information". These cover the right not to voice an opinion and also the right to be left alone from speech or information you do not want.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Needless to say that socialism is an economic concept, or better, the absence and denial and deconstruction of working economic principles, morals and ethics.

Like I said before: also an economic concept. Morals and ethics have the same connection to economics as they have to mathematics, but this is a whole different discussion, after all history and ideology consists of much more than economics.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Nietzsche once said the German most beloved symbolic image is the cloud. It is vague, nebulous, unclear, it has no clear contours, everything can be read into it, it holds no form, but constantly changes. The Germans have had two socialist dictatorships in a row - and they still adore it and yearn for it. That is because they refuse to see clear, and Platonists they are (different to the British-American world, which favoured Aristotle), they have an now inbuilt sympathy for dictatorial rule. Germasn are the born submissive citizens. That's why I say since years that the Germans, although they have more at risk and pay more than anyone else in Europe for the EU, will be among the last people in Europe to revolt against the EU dictatorship suffocating the continent and destroying our wealth. They crave even for more, they even embrace needing to pay higher taxes for it...! And more and more state adminsitratrion, more regulation, more social presents (even if they increase debts). The Germans, always high by their emotions which are a drug for them they crave for and which they are unable to control, are a hopeless case, believe me. Obedience and submission to the state, trust in collectives and miracle-believing that socialism makes all things well is something that gets soaked up with the mothermilk over here. Only the French, originators of the blood-thirsty mob that killed some unlucky guards to free some criminals and villains from the Bastille and making a big hype of this and the following bloodshed, are can compare to the Germans in their love for life in socialist miracles. Or delusions.

A quote, assigned to Lenin said "Wenn die Deutschen eine Revolution am Bahnhof machen wollen, kaufen sie zuerst eine Bahnsteigkarte."
However do you really want to deny that submission to the state was not propagandized by any system before the two German dictatorships? The Prussians were pretty keen of it, just as the Monarch rulers in the centuries before, a notable exception maybe being the Frysian Freedom.

However I don't understand your logic: when the Germans don't revolt they are submissive, when the French do so, they are a bloodthirsty mob?

Originally Posted by Skybird

Our most successful and competent economic leader who ever headed the ministry of economics, was Ludwig Erhard. He violated party politics, he did not care for power interests of politicians, he started by confronting the Allies and dropping their price controls without even asking them (the following economic improvement that made itself felt withion weeks proved him right), was left standing in the rain by his own "colleagues", he clashed with Adenauer over that old man's claim that economics shall be subordinate and in service of foreign politics and should even accept distortions if that is what foreign politics need. He acted by reason, ratioanlity, and common sense, and thew economic record under his rule showed him right. Poltically, as I said, he becakme soon totally isolated. What was in the interest of the economc healing and the imrpvement of the ordiunary German people'S econo9mic reality, was against the very interests of thre parties, and career politicians.

K, I swear this is the last time I use the e-word today. Erhard was also a opponent of the total free market economy, that's why he called his concept social market economy (oh nooz, the s-word again ) Yet I agree, his idea of partnership between enterprneurs and employees was economic successfull for after-war Germany.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Politicians do not get elected if telling grim truths. Telling sweet lies, gets them elected. That is one of the problems with democracy that made me strictly opposing it now. Democracy guarantees that the biggest lie-teller, the moron without spine and character, the unscrupulous villain and fraudster, has the best chances: the one who sets up the best show of lies and treason, has best chances top get elected. Democracy fosters the worst in man. Democracy punishes, demotivates the best in man. Democracy loot those who nevertheless try to work honestly and keep communities together by their work. The loot is needed by said political fraudsters, to allow them making bribery gifts to voters. In the end, all social gifts and presents must get payed by the stupid people nevertheless, may it be in state debts and interests, may it be via expropriation via taxing and inflation.

So why don't parties who promise milk and honey for everyone have a majority in every Democracy?

Originally Posted by Skybird

Penguin, for you I have this booktip. You will hate it, I promise. LINK - Roland Baader: Totgedacht. Warum Intellektuelle unsere Welt zerstören. The book shows that all so often it is abstract intellectuals only that are not rooted by their work or excistence in solid, material reality, that have brought havoc and disaster over people and nations, and who are always being fascinated by "Kopfgeburten" (book cover) that destroy freedom, morals, self-responsibility, wealth, and the basis of functioning economics. "Hirnies", we call these walking disasters on two legs. And they have cost mankind dearly. Socialism is such a "Kopfgeburt" as well. And it will sweep european nations and people into the gully once again.

Sure, why not - if I find the book for free. I am sure Pol Pot would approve to the concept of Anti-Intellectuism.
If you haven't read it yet, I propose you to read "wigan Pier" by the Socialist Orwell. The second part is a brilliant analysis of the people we in Germany call "Kaffehaussozialisten" (coffee-house-socialists) - a very "Broderesk" piece!

Still looking for a source to find where and when Hitler said "Marxism and National-Socialism are basically the same". A quick search says that the sole source to the acclaimed citation is Nicolaus von Below's "Als Hitlers Adjutant", would like to read the speech and the contect of the alleged sentence.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Penguin

(...) reduces Socialism to an economic concept, which is just wrong. It's a fallacy to look at an ideology purely from an economic angle. Das Kapital for example starts as a purely economic analysis; however the social construct known as Marxism focuses on much more.

Take away the destruction of functional price indexing that socialism as an economic "concept" is, and see how evertyhing else you claim it to be is collapsing and degrading into anarchy. I see the merit of Das Kapital in the observational part. The conclusions I found heavily derailed, and head-heavy. I do not see Marx that much as an ideology-founder. He did not really found an idea by himself, but refused another only, and claiming right to make it his follower's material prey. Somebody blackmailing travellers to pay him protection money or road tax and by that refusing these traveller's moral code or the laws of their society, is not a philosopher by that already. As I see it, Marx motivates people. But a motivation is not already an ideology by itself. Although, for reasons of linguistic convenience, I refer to it as that myself often, yes. But that is laziness on my part, I do not really imply that Marxism is an ideology in a positive meaning of existence. It is more about refusing something, than to be something itself.

Following this logic, public demonstrations should be outlawed, as the participants don't state their opinion on their own soil, but on public (collective) ground?

People cannot own nothing private but share all "public" possession, since that also would imply everybody owns everybody else. And what is it with that public sphere? It is grounds that had been stolen by impostors and criminals, stolen from previous private ownership, and claimed for the "state" now. The state claims the right that it can send or can send not the police to fight off protesters. Anyway, it is property rights defended or lend to the protester. If it were privately owned ground instead, my garden for example,m then indeed I would cl.aim the right to tolerate a protest going on there, or to demand protesters to leave, eventually forcing them out with people I payed and who have sticks with them. It is my property, I must mot allow foreigners doping things in there I do not want.

The right to live, they say. The starvings' right to live. Try to see how far you get in saving them when you do not translate that into property rights, may they be legally or illegally claimed! Just feeling by your heart people have a right to live, means nothing, and saves not a single life. You have to buy the seeds you want to give them, you have to lend the transports and pay for them, you have to pay road taxes to landowners, or bandits illegally claiming that land is theirs, to pass through and bring the aid to those needing it. If you do not own bread or seeds, you have nothing to give to them, and they will die, despite their "right to live". Again, you end up with property rights. May sound profane, may sound materialistic, but all human life is impossible without the profanity of materialism. When times of need emerge, people set priorities, and the basic material needs will be ruled highest, and the subtle qualities of fine arts and philosophic thinking are abandoned first. Man does not live by bread alone, they quote Jesus. Well, try to live without it! Material qualities are Pflicht. Cultural raffinesse is Kür. Send a starving man into the Royal Museum of Arts. His senses first lock on not those nice paintings on the walls, but the table with a food buffet. Gestaltpsychology is right.

Like I said before: also an economic concept. Morals and ethics have the same connection to economics as they have to mathematics, but this is a whole different discussion, after all history and ideology consists of much more than economics.

Socialism is a economic concept only in that it is destroying a functional market and monetarian value assessment of things: products and working skill. It has nothing to offer beyond this, and that is no wonder, because as especially the "Austrians" claimed so clearly you cannot know price values of stuff and functions of the economic system in advance, or fix them by your own splendid mathematical formulas: planned economies do not work, and never have worked, always resulting in collapse, poverty, material decline. If socialism is an economic concept, then it is a negative concept. Now take that scheme away, and see what is left of it. All its reasoning bases and grounds on that those producing something of value (value agreed on by other market participants who are willing to trade away something in order to get it) , can be expropriated, and that those not producing something of value (may it be products, may it be their working skill's contribution) have a claim to make against those that do better or earned more. The idea of "justice" in it is the justice of a robber, a parasite who wants to get fed without delivering his own share first. In other words, it has nothing to do with justice. I find that term being overused nowadays anyway. Socialism means that the majority of those benefitting from those producing is growing, and the group of those producing is shrinking. that is where we are today. It always is about explicitly destroying the free price fixing of a quantity or quality in negotiations between free people. The "state" says how much it should be worth. The state pans the price, and it plans what is needed, and what should be produced, and how much. Just that the state may be megalomanias, but it cannot know these things. The beauty of the market is that although you cannot explain how it brings all the variables together and make them functioning, it nevertheless does so. The inherent problem with it is the omnipresent tendency to try to form monopolies . But the biggest monopolist is the state. The state also is the biggest abuser of this privileged position it is in. And this monopolist should be left with planning the economy? That is the fox put in charge of the hen house.

A quote, assigned to Lenin said "Wenn die Deutschen eine Revolution am Bahnhof machen wollen, kaufen sie zuerst eine Bahnsteigkarte."
However do you really want to deny that submission to the state was not propagandized by any system before the two German dictatorships? The Prussians were pretty keen of it, just as the Monarch rulers in the centuries before, a notable exception maybe being the Frysian Freedom.

Where have I said so? Of course there was a history before WWI. Submission to the state is extremely strong in Germany, since the 17th century, in principle since its hour of birth, last but not least due to the immense influence of the protestant church also demanding obedience to the state and comparing the state'S authority to the church's paternalism. Protestantism has played a very damning role in the mentality-forming of Germans, unfortunately. Luther - was a disaster. He replaced the Catholic church with himself, so to speak. I do not see that as one bit better, considering quite some highly questionable views and demands of this man. - It was not just the Prussian spirit alone making Germans what they are.

However I don't understand your logic: when the Germans don't revolt they are submissive, when the French do so, they are a bloodthirsty mob?

The French revolt is overestimated: it is not a local revolt to free some thieves and murders from a prison,leading to a tyrannic, bloodthirsty reign of Jacobinian terror, no - it is the grandeur of the now socalled French revolution, the birth of freedom and democracy in Europe! I'm tempted to search up some passages from books I have in mind where the authors have some less friendly assessments of this anarchic mob rampaging the streets and causing shock and horror in the streets for long time to come.

K, I swear this is the last time I use the e-word today. Erhard was also a opponent of the total free market economy, that's why he called his concept social market economy (oh nooz, the s-word again ) Yet I agree, his idea of partnership between enterprneurs and employees was economic successfull for after-war Germany.

Erhard understood that any attempt to reach or define "social responsibility" without an economy basing on free markets, was an illusion. He spoke out loud and clear against planned markets and centralised economy. He "overrun" the Allies and risked himself getting into trouble when he simply disposed their system of fixed prices, because the currency reform the Allies were planning to him made no sense without free fluctuating prices and a free market. Currency reforms cannot heal the distortions of planned economies and planned markets, the market must be allowed to recalibrate in order to get rid of distortions caused by centralised economy planning. 1948 already, the socialist in Germany staged first protests against him, despite the obvious signs of improvement by his policy. He politically survived these efforts to dispose him and to replace him with propagators of planned economy, and he argued that free price finding by market participants was key to forcing the economy to constantly correct and improve (an incentive you have deleted in planned economies, you have replaced it with the incompetence of necessarily clueless planners). Braunschweig quotes Erhard by his use of the term "das deutsche Erb-Übel": greed and envy, and living with one hands in the other's pockets. Erhard often collided with Adenauer over several things, among them Erhard'S demand that the state must do all what it can to guarantee value-stable money and allow the freedom for price to find their fixing freely, and uninfluenced by politics and regulation, and neither this nor other economic concepts should be distorted for the purpose of pleasing foreign political goals: the economy is not a servant of foreign politics.
He also was against forming a Europe with united administrative or economic structures, for him this only opened the door for growing bureaucracy and corruption, increasing state governance and state regulation. Also, economically he saw no need for European institutions. He argued that free trade works much better for securing the peace between nations and people, due to the mutual interests of all participating sides. Needless to say he also was strictly refusing that one state should pay for the ambitions of another state, or its debts, namely that Germany should pay for French dreams of centralisation and dominance.

The "social quality" in his thinking that you referred to, is not the same "social" as socialists or the SPD understand it. Erhard argued that people need to be allowed work freely and make their decisions freely in order to live their life and earn their income and profits freely, in dignity and self-responsibility - that si the social market economy Erhard was ab out. Socialists and the SPD just try ot legitimise looting and robbing from the "rich", by the self-claimed "under-privileged". Making all equal - not before the law necessarilyl but equal by theor purse, allowing nobody to own more than anyone else - that is the socialist dream. In other words: nobody owns anything, but implying that all own everything - even every single one of those 7 billion people on this planet. Even an alternative system where everybody owns more than in socialsim and so all are better off, but some own even more than others, is rejected by them, according to them it is more "just" that all have less, but this "less" on the same basic level of possession. As Churchill put it: in capitalism, the wealth is distributed unequally. In socialism, poverty is distributed equally. And psychologically, people prefer this indeed, it has been shown in social and psychological experiments. The motive behind this irrationality is: greed and envy. Which are two other words for socialism, imo.

In the end, Erhard was isolated from all beginning on, taking fire from all sides, even his own party. As I always say, all democratic parties are socialists, else they do not know how to get elected (EU moron Juncker once said it plain and simple, quoting him by memory, so do not nail me on every single word: "Of course we know better what needs to be done, and of course we could do better. But then we would not get elected.") Seen that way, it is even more remarkable what Erhard was able to achieve against all odds. I respect him for his courage, and integrity, and uncompromised defense of self-responsibility, and freedom. But most people do not want self-responsibility, they want to be led to the feeding troughs and have them filled for free. Erhard propagated hard work, private saving and not giving up responsibility for one's own decisions, also that one cannot spend more than what one has produced. That was what he understood to be the dignity of man, and that dignity was what he understood to be social. And the tool to allow that social quality blossoming was the free market economy. And so the idea of social market economy. It was anything but the redistribution frenzies they nowadays sell us as claimed "justice" and "equality"! So, necessarily, he had everybody against him. Just that his recipes worked and formed positive results was what kept him in office so long. Really appreciating it and linking it to the man, I think most Germans did not, but one would better need to ask some time witnesses, maybe. I think the Germans just took it for granted, the wheel of time turning.

So why don't parties who promise milk and honey for everyone have a majority in every Democracy?

They have. Them all present themselves as messiahs saving the world without blood and sweat, sacrifices or conflicts. And where sacrifices and efforts get mentioned, they immediately get glorified and put into contexts so minimal that is goes unspoken that it does not really mean any nuisance to comply with their needs. Easy going, man! And for free!

The Merkelianists, the Socialists, the Communists, the eco-fascists - they all preach blossoming meadows and success of the German model, stable currencies, no German payments for the Euro, stable income when people have become old, economy running well, and endlessly so on. In the end, they all tax like crazy, push up debts even more, steal and redistribute, regulate, command, print more paper money. They all have become socialists, even the FDP, which i never understood to be a represent of true liberalism, btw - it is a cheap caricature at best. I also do not spare the AfD from my criticism, they try to live a hybrid's life: saying No to the Euro, but not with the needed consequence, but wanting to split it up, and at the same time fully confessing to the very fundament of what has brought up the Euro andf the criminal conspiracy around it: they nevertheless support the EU and its amok-running politeska.

Sure, why not - if I find the book for free. I am sure Pol Pot would approve to the concept of Anti-Intellectuism.
If you haven't read it yet, I propose you to read "wigan Pier" by the Socialist Orwell. The second part is a brilliant analysis of the people we in Germany call "Kaffehaussozialisten" (coffee-house-socialists) - a very "Broderesk" piece!

Thanks, I'll keep it in mind.

[Skybird]

And I want to remind of this. Argue with these ethics, if you can.

“Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions–and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

“But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made–before it can be looted or mooched–made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.’

“To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss–the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery–that you must offer them values, not wounds–that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade–with reason, not force, as their final arbiter–it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability–and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

Ayn Rand: "Francisco's Money Speech" (excerpt) from Atlas Shrugged

Man, one could engrave this in stone and be called a saint for doing so.

And I want to remind of this. Argue with these ethics, if you can.

That's easy.
What a pile of tripe
So many gaping flaws its almost infantile in its approach.

Man, one could engrave this in stone and be called a saint for doing so.

Only by people who swallow Rands nonsense like others swallow the Marx nonsense.
Being called a "saint" by such people is really no praise at all.
I suppose there is a difference between the two, Marx wrote a crap political theory which doesn't work, Rand wrote a crap novel which some people swallow as a political ideal

This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

Yes.

[Skybird]

This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?
---
Yes.

“Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you’ll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

“Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

“Or did you say it’s the love of money that’s the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money–and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

“Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another–their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

(...)

“Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard–the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money–the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law–men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims–then money becomes its creators’ avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

Ayn Rand - Francisco's Money Speech

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Yes.

Why?
Its all the fanciful conditionals which are the product of her drug addled mind that make it complete nonsense.
On reflection perhaps the comparison to Marx is a bit unfair on poor deluded Karl.
Lets put it another way instead.
If a Hubbardian and a Randroid exchanged books they would in effect be simply looking in a mirror.

Living by a 'code of existence' that reduces everything to mere 'tools' and 'symbols' (regardless of what the symbols represent - though for Rand, they seem to represent nothing but themselves) is dehumanising. Where is empathy? Where is love? What room is there for emotion at all in Rand's world? It is all utopian nonsense anyway. And while utopias may occasionally be interesting to imagine, I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in one...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

Why is that spam? People have long made jokes about Sky's "wall of text" posts, but in fact most of his posts are well-researched and thought-out.

Sailor Steve would accuse me of cluttering up the thread!

And he still will. While you are doing better at using the multi-quote button there is really no no reason to quote the entire long post, especially when you're not replying to it.

and REDOCTOBER would say he couldn't read it!

He's more likely to say he can't understand your post than Sky's.

I bend the knee to the Gauleiter of Garroulousness

Now that was funny. On the other hand it's considered bad form to laugh at your own jokes. It makes you look like you're afraid no one else will.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Living by a 'code of existence' that reduces everything to mere 'tools' and 'symbols' (regardless of what the symbols represent - though for Rand, they seem to represent nothing but themselves) is dehumanising. Where is empathy? Where is love? What room is there for emotion at all in Rand's world? It is all utopian nonsense anyway. And while utopias may occasionally be interesting to imagine, I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in one...

You miss the point, Rands fanciful ideology is not utopian, it is fundamentally flawed at every level making it entirely dystopian.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Living by a 'code of existence' that reduces everything to mere 'tools' and 'symbols' (regardless of what the symbols represent - though for Rand, they seem to represent nothing but themselves) is dehumanising. Where is empathy? Where is love? What room is there for emotion at all in Rand's world? It is all utopian nonsense anyway. And while utopias may occasionally be interesting to imagine, I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in one...

The 'code of existence' you complain about, is described by Rand as the qualities she mentions in the paragraphs that you seem to completely ignore in their content and implications. Especially a causal link between causes and effects, and her rejection of plundering and slavery as principles for interhuman interaction, disguising them as "social". Neither Rand nor me accept claims on social obligations if they just serve the purpose of stealing the deserved earnngs of the good and giving it to those not deserving and of lesser merits.

The decision whether i help somebody or not, should be left to where it belongs. It should be left with me, when it is about my ressources that are to be jsed on that. You do not know when and why I choose to intervene. And it does not matter that you do. That it is my volntary decision for or against ist, what counts. I do not accept benefitters of greed-led redistribution competitions and career-politicians anymore to decide in my place and then oblige me to pay for their decisions.

And emotions, you mentioned. It is strange, to me the positive characters in the novel show very strong, passionate emotions. But these are emotions grounding in honesty, self-reliance and strength - not this miserable wishy-washy that is so popular today and that aims at making the good ones feeling guilty for their goodness and accepting the purpose of the miserable ones wanting to suck their lifeblood and money.

I am empathic, absolutely. But I do not loose my head over it. It is the head that enables men to adress needs and solve problems, not the heart.Wallowing in emotions of pity never has saved a single life, ever. Empathy is not the call for blindly nursing just everybody who makes a claim for what is yours.

One year ago or so there started a debate in Germany. It was when Bill Gates made his call for billionaires sharing their wealth and give donations to projects of his foundation, sometthing like that. The socialists here in Germany almost exploded in anger. Free people of wealth freely deciding if and fkr what purpose they give donations? The German , eft immediately refused that, and claimed that these antisocial rich people should be forced by law fo give their donations to the politicians instead, and that the politicians then decide for them.

Must the underhanded and malicious bigotry here really be explained any further? I only say this: there is a huge social activity business in place now, and many people's careers and jobs, incomes and election chances depend on that this not only not changes, but is getting boosted in size even more. I call it social-fascism, due to its omnipresence and imperial claim to surrender to it, unconditionally.

And that is pushing more and more people into dependence from the wellfare state.That is wanted, because it secures politicians their thankfulness, while making the people weak and defenceless, robbing their dignity, self-esteem, initiative, and freedom. It also ruins our economies, destroyed our money, grows our debts, and make our chidren getting born as slaves to the sins of their fathers.

Empathy, you say? Fine, but not without carefully discriminating between those deserving jt and thkse who don't, and weighing the costs against the gains and weighing the intentions against unwanted effects.

Much of what Rand says in the quotes, is nothing else but common sense, some is consequences of libertarian/Austrian money theory and economic theory.

"Senor d'Anconia," declared the woman with the earrings, "I don't agree with you!"

"If you can refute a single sentence I uttered, madame, I shall hear it gratefully."

"Oh, I can't answer you. I don't have any answers, my mind doesn't work that way, but I don't feel that you're right, so I know that you're wrong."

"How do you know it?"

"I feel it. I don't go by my head, but by my heart. You might be good at logic, but you're heartless."

"Madame, when we'll see men dying of starvation around us, your heart won't be of any earthly use to save them. And I'm heartless enough to say that when you'll scream, 'But I didn't know it!'—you will not be forgiven."

Skybird, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I take your arguments seriously. I don't. I've got better things to do with my time that read the rambling prose of cult followers, whether they are pushing 'libertarian/Austrian money theory', Orgone Therapy, or Dianetics. Not least because such cult followers seem to have a habit of flitting from one cult to the next.

Have you ever been a Scientologist?