|
Dapper Dan posted:Their minds would absolutely be blown by Jonas Salk then. He invented the polio vaccine. And you know what? He decided that he had enough money as a doctor and didn't patent it, giving up around 7 billion dollars in today's money. He did this in order to make the vaccine cheap as possible so the entirety of humanity could benefit from it. From rich to poor. The weirdest part to me is that they care about money to the exclusion of all else when there are perfectly good entirely selfish reasons to care about other things. I mean I'll be honest, I'd like to think I'm a decent person but if you tempt me with billions of dollars, I could probably be moved to do some fairly lovely things, so I'm not going to claim money has no appeal or anything. But you know what would be more appealing than literally any amount of money? Being known for the rest of Human history as the man who solved almost every problem, which would directly or indirectly be the result of completely free energy. Hyperbole, but still, eliminating the constraints of energy would be an unparalleled feat that would empower (heh) the third world, reduce pollution by like 50% overnight, and free up stupid amounts of resources for other things. Even if you were a monomaniacal Randian Ubermensch the most rational thing to do would be to give the thing away because you'd still be hailed as the greatest person to ever live long, long after Jesus' name was forgotten. But that, of course, would do you no good because if you don't have money you can't make sure other people don't get a hold of it.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:40 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbAhfThNoco
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:The weirdest part to me is that they care about money to the exclusion of all else when there are perfectly good entirely selfish reasons to care about other things. I mean I'll be honest, I'd like to think I'm a decent person but if you tempt me with billions of dollars, I could probably be moved to do some fairly lovely things, so I'm not going to claim money has no appeal or anything. Here's the worst part - when you're the God-Emperor of the Imperium of Man, you don't need money. Who gives a gently caress about cash when you can walk into any shop on the planet, namedrop, and be able to pick anything you want from their inventory and walk out? Hell you don't even have to namedrop at that point, your face is a no-limit expense account because every man, woman, and child would know your appearance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:I always find it hilarious when libertarians threaten to "go Galt". Society would be improved so much by their absence from it. Pretty much. Go 'Galt', gently caress off and have your anarchistic state where everything is privatized and you can basically do whatever you want as long as you can pay for it. Let me know how that works out for you. Mister Adequate posted:The weirdest part to me is that they care about money to the exclusion of all else when there are perfectly good entirely selfish reasons to care about other things. I mean I'll be honest, I'd like to think I'm a decent person but if you tempt me with billions of dollars, I could probably be moved to do some fairly lovely things, so I'm not going to claim money has no appeal or anything. It is hard to reject that kind of money, which is why people that can do something like Jonas Salk did are remembered for basically all time. They went above and beyond the call, sacrificing personal comfort and wealth for the good of millions (potentially billions). This is because more money = better than. That is literally it. It also ties in with the toxic theology of the prosperity gospel, where if you make more money you are favored by God and deserve it. And the poor are all sinners who have done something to slight God or haven't prayed hard enough. So they can go hand-in-hand. It is also why no libertarian will ever be remembered as anything more than a cancer on society. Because they will never solve any of humanity's problems and only contribute to human suffering. And it isn't a rational philosophy in the least (see the Kickstarted 'Atlas Shrugged'). It is for sociopaths and narcissists to justify their inherent selfishness and think they are better than the unenlightened masses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
The problem with "Going Galt" is that a society of "job creators" and "Titans of industry" only works when their is a large amount of poor to middle class workers available to employ and sell poo poo to. Someone has to scrub all the toilets, farm all the food, dispose of all the garbage, and fight all the wars. Of course no randian will ever admit this or explain all of it away by claiming their unfettered technological development will get rid of all those pesky labor needs. I think this quote from Macbeth sums up Ayn Rands entire life pretty well quote:Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:Their minds would absolutely be blown by Jonas Salk then. He invented the polio vaccine. And you know what? He decided that he had enough money as a doctor and didn't patent it, giving up around 7 billion dollars in today's money. He did this in order to make the vaccine cheap as possible so the entirety of humanity could benefit from it. From rich to poor. Actually, no, libertarians would have been totally cool with it because he made the choice himself. Granted they're deplorable because if Salk instead patented it and wrung as much money as he could have out of it they would have supported that as well, but Salk made that decision on his own so by definition they'd have to support it. Granted it also flies in the face of the theory of "take the reins off and let the rich make all the drat money they'll please, greed will motivate them" because not everybody is motivated by greed. Salk is a perfect example of that. He was a total bro that was like "hey world, I just cured polio. You can just like, have it. It's cool, polio sucks and I'm just happy to have cured it." Contemporary corporate conservatives probably think he's insane but a proper libertarian would be like "yeah man, that's what he wants, so he can do that. Whatever."
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Dapper Dan posted:It is also why no libertarian will ever be remembered as anything more than a cancer on society. Because they will never solve any of humanity's problems and only contribute to human suffering. And it isn't a rational philosophy in the least (see the Kickstarted 'Atlas Shrugged'). It is for sociopaths and narcissists to justify their inherent selfishness and think they are better than the unenlightened masses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Apparently a group of Seattle business owners has collected enough signatures to put a repeal of the $15 minimum wage increase on the ballot for November. This should be hilarious, do they think that there are more rich business owners than wage slaves in Seattle?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
It's good to know the Kochs would be viewed as literally Hitler by Rand herself, but then again most objectivists and libertarians seem to always glance over Rand's idea of free movement of labor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Koch's charitable "gifts" are almost always to buy influence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Is it supposed to be impressive that someone donated less than 2% of their net worth to charity?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Koch's charitable "gifts" are almost always to buy influence. 1) Are you implying charitable gifts from wealthy donors whose political views you agree with are not in part to buy influence? 2) Even if the gifts buy influence, does that money not eventually benefit someone who needs it? Who cares why I give millions of dollars to cancer research if it eventually helps cancer patients who don't give a hoot about your political fights? EDIT: Lemming posted:Is it supposed to be impressive that someone donated less than 2% of their net worth to charity? It's supposed to show that those everyone here is demonizing as selfish Randian idolaters and Libertards do, at times, contribute to good causes and benefit/positively influence some people's lives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:This should be hilarious, do they think that there are more rich business owners than wage slaves in Seattle? I bet there are a lot of people who make $16-$20 an hour who are really mad that "those people" are closing in on them in terms of income. Never underestimate just how spiteful and petty people can be, and how deeply Americans have tied their self-worth to their income and how their income compares to those around them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Is it supposed to be impressive that someone donated less than 2% of their net worth to charity? No, you're supposed to look at the amount and not do the math. It's so the rich can be all smug and be all like "well, I have $1 billion to help cure cancer, you hate cancer right? What have YOU done to get rid of cancer?"  When, really, if you look at percentages the non-wealthy are way, way more likely to give a higher percentage of their wealth than the wealthy.Hell, there's even a Bible verse about it where Jesus is looking at a bunch of rich dudes who dump a bunch of coins on the temple and then brag about it. Then a very poor woman walks up and give them very little, but it's almost everything she has. Jesus goes "those rich shits aren't getting into heaven but that woman will."
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Charity doesn't count if your intentions are wrong. Also, the bible clearly states that giving is measured in percent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Actually, no, libertarians would have been totally cool with it because he made the choice himself. Granted they're deplorable because if Salk instead patented it and wrung as much money as he could have out of it they would have supported that as well, but Salk made that decision on his own so by definition they'd have to support it. A generic libertarian might, but I'm pretty sure Rand would be appalled. She believed that altruism was a vice and if in any given situation you're not doing as much to help yourself as possible there's something wrong with you. She believed that the genocide of the indigenous peoples of America, which I'm pretty sure most libertarians would recognize as a bad thing, was justified because they weren't depleting natural resources fast enough. As bad as libertarians are, Rand was an order of magnitude worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
made of bees posted:A generic libertarian might, but I'm pretty sure Rand would be appalled. She believed that altruism was a vice and if in any given situation you're not doing as much to help yourself as possible there's something wrong with you. She believed that the genocide of the indigenous peoples of America, which I'm pretty sure most libertarians would recognize as a bad thing, was justified because they weren't depleting natural resources fast enough. As bad as libertarians are, Rand was an order of magnitude worse. Rand is a special kind of libertarian and not all libertarians are also Randists. I think Randism is actually more popular among conservatives than libertarians, all told. But yes, Rand would think Salk was being a big stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Amergin posted:It's supposed to show that those everyone here is demonizing as selfish Randian idolaters and Libertards do, at times, contribute to good causes and benefit/positively influence some people's lives. Someone can do some good and still, as a net value, be a cancerous tumor on the rear end of humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Aerox posted:I bet there are a lot of people who make $16-$20 an hour who are really mad that "those people" are closing in on them in terms of income. This. My coworkers and I make between $22 - $26 an hour in Seattle and half of my workers have whined incessantly about how it isn't fair and how hard they had to work to get here and those people don't deserve to make so much money. We've got an easy as gently caress job. I worked harder when I worked for $5 an hour. I regularly put my coworkers in their place but the ones that vote are going to vote against a high wage. Luckily most of them are just fuckwits who like to complain but don't bother to vote.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
I hate these assholes, but gotta admit that I laughed when he drove by the cyclists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:This. My coworkers and I make between $22 - $26 an hour in Seattle and half of my workers have whined incessantly about how it isn't fair and how hard they had to work to get here and those people don't deserve to make so much money. Tell them to work harder so they'll make more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:I hate these assholes, but gotta admit that I laughed when he drove by the cyclists. what the hell is wrong with you
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
Magres posted:Someone can do some good and still, as a net value, be a cancerous tumor on the rear end of humanity. I'm glad you've nominated yourself as the judge who does the moral math of a person to label them as a net-"cancerous tumor on the rear end of humanity." Meanwhile a person with cancer who doesn't really care about your judgment about who is or isn't a cancerous tumor is getting help, with partial thanks to that tumor's money. So when was the last time you donated to cancer research, not-cancerous-tumor-on-the-rear end-of-humanity?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:We've got an easy as gently caress job. I worked harder when I worked for $5 an hour. I regularly put my coworkers in their place but the ones that vote are going to vote against a high wage. Luckily most of them are just fuckwits who like to complain but don't bother to vote. Seriously. I've never worked harder than for minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Koch's gifts are poisoned. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Amergin posted:1) Are you implying charitable gifts from wealthy donors whose political views you agree with are not in part to buy influence? If you rob and steal $100 dollars from 100 people then turn around and give $2 to 2 hungry people, that is still overall bad. In the grand scheme of things, it's negligible, and is a red herring. withak posted:Charity doesn't count if your intentions are wrong. Also, the bible clearly states that giving is measured in percent. If you killed 10 children to save 1 person with cancer, it would still overall be wrong, yes. The Kochs have done horrible things to get their money. Just because they return a pittance to society doesn't make up for it. It's better than if they didn't give anything, but less good than if they weren't getting that money in the first place from stealing from society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Amergin posted:1) Are you implying charitable gifts from wealthy donors whose political views you agree with are not in part to buy influence? 1) Of course not. 2) Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Statistically speaking you would end up with more money being donated if our wealth distribution was also not so top heavy. Yeah, it looks good if $750 million goes to charity but if you had 10,000,000 people with as much money as the Kochs you would, overall, end up getting more, if you look at the giving rates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Apparently a group of Seattle business owners has collected enough signatures to put a repeal of the $15 minimum wage increase on the ballot for November. Reuters posted:Yes for Seattle, a coalition that supports the wage hike, earlier this week submitted a complaint to local prosecutors accusing Forward Seattle signature gatherers of lying by saying the proposed ballot measure was in support of hiking the minimum wage to $15 an hour, rather than a repeal attempt. So with any luck this be proven to be the case, and it won't end up on the ballot. Of course, they still have years to keep trying before it even benefits anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Amergin posted:
The reason why people are demonizing them is because the Randian and Libertarian belief system has the idea that selfishness is a core value, and that any kind of hand outs encourage only laziness. Of course nothing says all Randians and Libertarians are consistent in their beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Lemming posted:If you killed 10 children to save 1 person with cancer, it would still overall be wrong, yes. The Kochs have done horrible things to get their money. Just because they return a pittance to society doesn't make up for it. It's better than if they didn't give anything, but less good than if they weren't getting that money in the first place from stealing from society. that guy was being serious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:This should be hilarious, do they think that there are more rich business owners than wage slaves in Seattle? They think more republicans turn out for midterms than democrats
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Is that not the case?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Lemming posted:If you rob and steal $100 dollars from 100 people then turn around and give $2 to 2 hungry people, that is still overall bad. In the grand scheme of things, it's negligible, and is a red herring. The Kochs' gathering and distribution of wealth is not nearly as simple as your example. Your false equivalence is a red herring ToxicSlurpee posted:Statistically speaking you would end up with more money being donated if our wealth distribution was also not so top heavy. Yeah, it looks good if $750 million goes to charity but if you had 10,000,000 people with as much money as the Kochs you would, overall, end up getting more, if you look at the giving rates. Assuming people's behavior doesn't change when they gain wealth, which research has shown the poor get more FYGM the more money they get.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:They think more republicans turn out for midterms than democrats They are right about that but even in mixed electorates, minimum wage issues pretty much always win.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Assuming people's behavior doesn't change when they gain wealth, which research has shown the poor get more FYGM the more money they get. Yeah, and people become even more FYGM the higher up on the chart you get. What's your point? It would most likely be better that 10,000,000 people had the Koch's wealth than the Kochs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Alexzandvar posted:The reason why people are demonizing them is because the Randian and Libertarian belief system has the idea that selfishness is a core value, and that any kind of hand outs encourage only laziness. Of course nothing says all Randians and Libertarians are consistent in their beliefs. You can berate a system all you want, but if the only person who ever truly believed in all of its tenets is dead and the rest are trying to show faith to garner support but don't REALLY believe in every single tenet, and you're trying to equate the two, you're being thick and circlejerky just to be thick and circlejerky. It's like dehumanizing Islam and then dehumanizing all Muslims through the transitive power of being a judgmental prick even though most don't necessarily treat every tenet of Islam the same.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Amergin posted:The Kochs' gathering and distribution of wealth is not nearly as simple as your example. Your false equivalence is a red herring You're right, it isn't that simple, but 2% is a tiny amount, considering where all the money is coming from. You're also simultaneously saying that it's impressive that Koch has donated less than 2% of his net worth, but also that if 10,000,000 had the Koch's wealth distributed equally among them, they would donate more than that, since you're also saying that the richer you get the less you donate, and 40something billion divided between 10 million people would mean those individuals are poorer and thus donate at a higher rate. So what's your point again?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Amergin posted:You can berate a system all you want, but if the only person who ever truly believed in all of its tenets is dead and the rest are trying to show faith to garner support but don't REALLY believe in every single tenet, and you're trying to equate the two, you're being thick and circlejerky just to be thick and circlejerky. You're really comparing criticizing one of the most destructive people in the american political sphere to dehumanizing Muslims?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:40 |
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:I hate these assholes, but gotta admit that I laughed when he drove by the cyclists. I agree, gently caress all cyclists. They're destroying our economy and ecology.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 22:31
|
|