|
This fucking website logged me out in between me typing my response and hitting 'submit', so this is a less detailed response because I just don't have the inclination to retype that whole damn thing.
Indonesia:
"Business interests" are irrelevant. The proper function of a government in a capitalist society is the protection of individual rights. They are not private mercenaries for private interests. Because a government acted in a certain way in a foreign affair that, at least ostensibly to many people, seemed to be interest of the business sector does not make it a capitalist action.
I would even argue that this is a misuse of the term "interest" as such actions are usually to everyone's detriment in the long run. But that is another discussion.
The Fed:
The Fed is not a private establishment. That it acts with little oversight or accountability does not make it any less FEDeral. It was created by an act of Congress. Its Board of Governors is presidentially appointed. The Fed has the legal authority to regulate, supervise and just plain fuck with banks in more ways than you can even imagine. It has carte blanche on manipulating interest rates and the money supply.
This is not a private institution.
Bush:
Bush passed countless pieces of legislation that do not tickle the asshole "corporate interests". The Rx drug bill, No Child Left Behind, faith-based initiatives, expansion of medicare. Bush was a welfare state queen.
Rand:
Have you read Rand? Because you do here what so many who only get their information secondhand from a shitty source do: conflate Rand with Nietzsche. Rand's political philosophy, in regards to government, is that the proper function of government is the protection of individual rights. That is all. Every individual possesses certain rights by their nature as individual human beings.
Wage slavery:
Christ. Listen, if you continue to conflate economic power with political power, this conversation will never resolve a thing. Economic power is the power of persuasion and political power is the power of the gun, of force. The employee/employer relationship is voluntary. If they cannot come to terms, they go their separate ways. It sounds like what you want is not equality before the law (which is proper), but metaphysical egalitarianism. You have no right to capital that you didn't purchase or earn in some other way.
Rand's "bitchiness":
What of it? Even if she was a bitch (and, really, there is no good reason to believe she is), does that invalidate her philosophy? If you truly believe what you are advocating and can back it up, should you be expected to bend to everyone who disagrees? What are you and I doing here? We both believe we are right and are each trying to convince the other of it. Rand constructed her philosophy to be a logical, hierarchical system. That is, each wider abstraction is the logical extension of more fundamental ideas. Consequently, one can trace a logical line from her metaphysics through her esthetics.
AR's books:
I think you mean the Ayn Rand Institute. And you made the point that Rand's popularity can be attributed to millionaires trying to assuage their guilt. I'm trying to point out that her influence extends further than that. I know Objectivists who are rich, poor, middleclass, white, black, asian, hispanic, gay, old, young. I know Objectivists who work in countless different industries. Indeed, many of these people are not just people I know personally. They have popular blogs or are respected academicians. They aren't hidden.
Property rights:
Okay, here is the capsule version--
Since we are talking about Rand, here are some of her own words: "The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible." What this means is that man has a certain nature. His life requires certain kinds of sustenance can only be sustained by certain means. The means are, in the broadest essentials, thought and action. He must sustain his life by his own effort and, if he is to survive, he must be allowed to keep the fruits of his efforts (i.e., his property).
|