tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post6755858272724903226..comments2024-03-19T07:48:54.021-06:00Comments on Gus Van Horn: Whose womb is it, anyway?Gus Van Hornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-84024280957514838182009-02-10T19:14:00.000-06:002009-02-10T19:14:00.000-06:00Agreed.I've held forth with critics at length befo...Agreed.<BR/><BR/>I've held forth with critics at length before, but if there's one thing I haven't any patience for, it's one dishonest, clueless objection after another, made as if I owe a spoonfeeding to any random passer-by.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-1237150494844877402009-02-10T18:46:00.000-06:002009-02-10T18:46:00.000-06:00The use of the term "Randian Utopia" establishes t...The use of the term "Randian Utopia" establishes that "anonymous" is the most common sort of Objectivist critic: those who have made no effort to read or understand her ideas. What they rail against is their bizarre imagination of what her ideas are -- usually as fed to them by other critics like themselves.<BR/><BR/>That Nyquist character who runs the "Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature" blog is the archetype of this sort; when I discovered his blog, I picked one of his posts at random (the "Does Ayn Rand understand Objectivism" post, IIRC) to see what he had -- and he was making shit up in the very first paragraph.<BR/><BR/>The honest critic who makes the effort to understand what her ideas actually are, *before* deciding whether they agree or disagree with them, is a rare bird. I'm beginning to think that we should compile a list of such critics, just for our own edification. I enjoy interacting with critics I can respect; they help keep me on my toes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-35941056002390313162009-02-05T22:43:00.000-06:002009-02-05T22:43:00.000-06:00Thanks, Madmax. All good points again.This person ...Thanks, Madmax. All good points again.<BR/><BR/>This person may have also appeared here before, too, based on his/her/its location and the one I remember for an "anonymous" who went on a long harangue about going on strike awhile back. <BR/><BR/>We went back and forth for awhile and then I ended up on his/her/its "enemy list".Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-39174369282326991872009-02-05T21:05:00.000-06:002009-02-05T21:05:00.000-06:00Gus,After reading the latest salvo from "anonymous...Gus,<BR/><BR/>After reading the latest salvo from "anonymous", I am convinced it is the same person from the NoodleFood debate; she (and it is a she) uses the very same phraseology. She is a very persistent and vehement enemy of individualism and self-interest as her comments indicate, and its clear she loathes Objectivism and Objectivists. <BR/><BR/>But I would like to comment on just one thing as I see it often, namely this:<BR/><BR/>"Hardly. It takes 18-25 years for a child to join the rolls of taxpayers. On the other hand, Rand's ideas have been floating around for quite some time now, and her ideas are no more popular than they ever were: her ideas are largely the concerns of college-aged young adults, and most don't maintain the passion for her ideas once they start having (and sacrificing for) children."<BR/><BR/>This reveals complete ignorance of how - and how long - ideas spread through a culture. Ayn Rand is only dead 27 years. That is absolutely nothing in "philosophic time." Sadly, no philosophy - especially one as radical as Objectivism - has been accepted in full in one or two generations. People with old ideas have to be replace with new ones. This takes centuries, for every new philosophy. Certain philosophies that are already aligned with the current trend - like Kant's - will be accepted faster, but even then it took about a century from the publication of "The Critique of Pure Reason" to get to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and The Progressive Era. So the fact that Rand hasn't been accepted yet in a fierce and powerful philosophical uprising is hardly surprising. I feel that such an uprising will eventually occur, but it may take centuries (sadly), and much bloodshed and misery to pave the way for it. <BR/><BR/>And lastly, as for raising children being an act of sacrifice, well, that is just a confession that anonymous can't conceive of a non-sacrificial relationship between human beings, which to me is a confession of the disgusting collectivst-oriented metaphysics which dominates our culture (left and right included).<BR/><BR/>Thanks for letting me commenting on the collectivist sentiments of this particular (and ugly) altruist.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-31843956229404542772009-02-05T19:18:00.000-06:002009-02-05T19:18:00.000-06:00Ah. Once again, the comment queue hides a comment....Ah. Once again, the comment queue hides a comment. It was by "Anonymous", who is obviously a gloating fan of the welfare state or a troll.<BR/><BR/>All I have to say regards his smear of the person who went on unemployment.<BR/><BR/>Ayn Rand pretty much <A HREF="http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2008/06/quick-roundup-337.html#sta" REL="nofollow">addressed that issue</A> in her essay, "The Question of Scholarships". <BR/><BR/>Anyway, that's the last comment of his that I'm posting. As he, whose words are worth less than the paper they're printed on, says, "Talk is cheap."<BR/><BR/>My time isn't.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-21873292526451993352009-02-05T19:09:00.000-06:002009-02-05T19:09:00.000-06:00"anonymous would have us be sacrificed for the sak..."<I>anonymous would have us be sacrificed for the sake of the welfare state which he/she says they 'despise' (right...)</I>"<BR/><BR/>Thank you. I realized about ten minutes after I replied that anyone who wants to perpetuate the welfare state cannot possibly "despise" it as much as I do.<BR/><BR/>And actually, despise is too weak a word. I HATE the welfare state because it lowers my quality of life and poses a threat to my life.<BR/><BR/>You other comments were spot-on, as always.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-45771082929086557242009-02-05T18:57:00.000-06:002009-02-05T18:57:00.000-06:00"The solution to the problem is to work towards th..."The solution to the problem is to work towards the abolishment of the welfare state."<BR/><BR/>That is true, certainly. But I don't think it's going to happen: the indications are that we will follow Europe's lead to socialism. <BR/><BR/>"One common objection to my proposal is that the welfare state is "too big" and "too entrenched". So was slavery at one time, and within decades, a tiny minority of abolitionists changed that."<BR/><BR/>Yes, but the "tiny minority" wasn't so tiny as you suggest: "Uncle Tom's Cabin" had done much to inspire anti-slavery convictions in the general population. This was also a very religious period, and appeals to "the common good" and "brotherhood of all men" resounded with people. This particular struggle is not very comparable. <BR/><BR/>"The timetables for that, and for your "taxpayers" to grow up and become productive (a very big assumption) are comparable."<BR/><BR/>Hardly. It takes 18-25 years for a child to join the rolls of taxpayers. On the other hand, Rand's ideas have been floating around for quite some time now, and her ideas are no more popular than they ever were: her ideas are largely the concerns of college-aged young adults, and most don't maintain the passion for her ideas once they start having (and sacrificing for) children.<BR/><BR/>"Give me liberty over government handouts any day. Free, I can care fir myself. Enslaved to a paternalistic government, I am prevented from doing so, no matter how much inflated money the state tosses my way, if it does."<BR/><BR/>Nice sentiments, nicely expressed. But you are a slave to a paternalistic government whether you like it or not -- just try not paying your taxes -- federal, state, municipal, and on sales. See how far you get. <BR/>I knew an Objectivist in New York who maintained her ideas even though she spent half of her time on unemployment -- so much for principle! But it's easy to be hard on someone else when it's not you having to face needing to eat and pay the rent. <BR/>Talk is cheap.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-42657277381994763132009-02-05T18:43:00.000-06:002009-02-05T18:43:00.000-06:00"It's a demographic problem, simply put."This remi..."It's a demographic problem, simply put."<BR/><BR/>This reminds me of a debate in the NoodleFood comments section sometime in 2008 with someone who made the same arguments as "anonymous." This person - who was secular - argued that abortion and contraception were harmful to society because they encourage non-procreative sex which lowers the birth rate and thus makes us vulnerable to the spread of Islam - as Muslims have a high birthrate - and makes us vulnerable to the collapse of the welfare state - which is all that we can hope to maintain in our time. Of course, this person argued that both abortion and contraception should therefore be banned for national self-preservation.<BR/><BR/>The interesting thing is that this person was secular but still making all the Conservative "demographic" arguments. And it is the Conservatives who are obsessed with demographics and birth rates. I think there is a deep strain of determinism in the demographic obsession. As well as a vicious collectivism; so the rights of individuals must be sacrificed to preserve the demographic, which I presume is the European peoples. <BR/><BR/>"In a Randian Utopia, this wouldn't be an issue. But that's not where you and I live. Dismiss that as "pragmatism" if you wish, but that doesn't change reality. The reality is that having more children than replacement level (2.1, or some such number)puts more future taxpayers into the system."<BR/><BR/>So, since we don't live in a "Randian utopia" - which I take as an insult to all of us deluded and unrealistic idealists - anonymous would have us be sacrificed for the sake of the welfare state which he/she says they "despise" (right...). My somewhat cynical answer to this is that if all that is possible is the welfare state than I would rather it fail. The American welfare-state be damned. Let catastrophe happen, the dust settle and maybe the next great civilization will get things right by embracing the exact opposite philosophy as anonymous. With so called "friends" like anonymous, who the hell needs enemies.madmaxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14375140131881725965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-41602017213528912572009-02-05T15:48:00.000-06:002009-02-05T15:48:00.000-06:00Thanks, RT, and sorry I missed your comment the fi...Thanks, RT, and sorry I missed your comment the first time through.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-78903556158220210142009-02-05T15:47:00.000-06:002009-02-05T15:47:00.000-06:00The solution to the problem is to work towards the...The solution to the problem is to work towards the abolishment of the welfare state.<BR/><BR/>One common objection to my proposal is that the welfare state is "too big" and "too entrenched". So was slavery at one time, and within decades, a tiny minority of abolitionists changed that.<BR/><BR/>The timetables for that, and for your "taxpayers" to grow up and become productive (a very big assumption) are comparable.<BR/><BR/>Give me liberty over government handouts any day. Free, I can care fir myself. Enslaved to a paternalistic government, I am prevented from doing so, no matter how much inflated money the state tosses my way, if it does.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-89893984908671156832009-02-05T15:41:00.000-06:002009-02-05T15:41:00.000-06:00It's not "my" system -- I despise it as much as yo...It's not "my" system -- I despise it as much as you do. But, it's the system we unfortunately are living under. And, like it or not, there aren't enough productive workers to pay for the retirement and health needs of an aging population. It's a demographic problem, simply put. In a Randian Utopia, this wouldn't be an issue. But that's not where you and I live. Dismiss that as "pragmatism" if you wish, but that doesn't change reality. The reality is that having more children than replacement level (2.1, or some such number)puts more future taxpayers into the system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-55515280666738732772009-02-05T15:18:00.000-06:002009-02-05T15:18:00.000-06:00Ha ha! Sounds like Anonymous has been inspired by ...Ha ha! Sounds like Anonymous has been inspired by Putin's "get pregnant for mother Russia" campaign.<BR/><BR/>Eight disabled people are unlikely to be tax-payers, or even storm-troopers!Realist Theoristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02443210652365042245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-90006955857675325192009-02-05T14:38:00.000-06:002009-02-05T14:38:00.000-06:00There is so much wrong with your comment that I sc...There is so much wrong with your comment that I scarcely know where to begin....<BR/><BR/>Your "system" is a welfare state that violates the rights of the individual human beings who live under -- not belong to -- it.<BR/><BR/>The "needs" of such a glorified thugocracy deserve no consideration.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-76971102530381335152009-02-05T14:05:00.000-06:002009-02-05T14:05:00.000-06:00Well, from an economic point of view it can be arg...Well, from an economic point of view it can be argued that she has provided 8 future taxpayers for a system that needs them -- a system that faces huge problems as the birthrate declines.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-32443255213048402662009-02-03T15:13:00.000-06:002009-02-03T15:13:00.000-06:00Agreed. And I would call the decision to bear this...Agreed. <BR/><BR/>And I would call the decision to bear this many at once immoral under any remotely normal circumstance.Gus Van Hornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05126749051688217781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8839412.post-36382345018329071332009-02-03T14:55:00.000-06:002009-02-03T14:55:00.000-06:00When I heard a TV commentator say this woman had b...When I heard a TV commentator say this woman had been selfish, my stomach turned. <BR/><BR/>I know the world uses "selfish" differently. If some kid shoots another to get his sneakers, and the world calls him selfish, ... well, I'm used to that. This was different. <BR/><BR/>Given all the facts, this woman's action borders on insanity. Let's imagine she had all the millions in the world. It would still border on the insane to have 8 kids at one time, and more so when one knows there is a high probability that some will be severely disabled.<BR/><BR/>If she is sane, she did something extremely self-destructive and extremely immoral.Realist Theoristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02443210652365042245noreply@blogger.com