Comments on: The Purpose Of It All http://www.newclarion.com/2008/11/the-purpose-of-it-all/ Our mission is to combat the unreason and selflessness that are sweeping our culture from the nihilist left to the religious right, and to sound a new ideal of capitalism and individual rights in American politics. Mon, 06 Feb 2012 03:04:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Two--Four http://www.newclarion.com/2008/11/the-purpose-of-it-all/#comment-8 Two--Four Wed, 26 Nov 2008 19:16:32 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/2008/11/the-purpose-of-it-all/#comment-8 [...] Myrhaf is posting at a new blog, and I've discovered who I'm pretty sure is the only other person I know who has actually read [...] [...] Myrhaf is posting at a new blog, and I’ve discovered who I’m pretty sure is the only other person I know who has actually read [...]

]]> By: Bill Brown http://www.newclarion.com/2008/11/the-purpose-of-it-all/#comment-7 Bill Brown Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:11:17 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/2008/11/the-purpose-of-it-all/#comment-7 This resurgence of Keynesian economics (or I guess it never really left the Left) makes me wonder if those in power actively refuse to read books like Anderson's. Maybe it never crossed their radars, maybe they've read it but dismissed it on ideological grounds. It's been a long time since I read it, but I remember considering it incontrovertible and immaculately researched. This resurgence of Keynesian economics (or I guess it never really left the Left) makes me wonder if those in power actively refuse to read books like Anderson’s. Maybe it never crossed their radars, maybe they’ve read it but dismissed it on ideological grounds. It’s been a long time since I read it, but I remember considering it incontrovertible and immaculately researched.

]]> By: Myrhaf http://www.newclarion.com/2008/11/the-purpose-of-it-all/#comment-6 Myrhaf Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:49:21 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/2008/11/the-purpose-of-it-all/#comment-6 I worked for two months in the '80s at Laissez Faire Books in NYC, where I picked up a lot of great books. The Anderson book is backed up with facts and figures that cannot be denied. The problem is that people like you and me have read the book, but not Paulson, Bush, Obama or Waxman. I worked for two months in the ’80s at Laissez Faire Books in NYC, where I picked up a lot of great books. The Anderson book is backed up with facts and figures that cannot be denied. The problem is that people like you and me have read the book, but not Paulson, Bush, Obama or Waxman.

]]> By: Billy Beck http://www.newclarion.com/2008/11/the-purpose-of-it-all/#comment-5 Billy Beck Wed, 26 Nov 2008 14:45:15 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/2008/11/the-purpose-of-it-all/#comment-5 I think you're the only person I know besides me who's actually read Anderson. I think you’re the only person I know besides me who’s actually read Anderson.

]]> By: Jim May http://www.newclarion.com/2008/11/the-purpose-of-it-all/#comment-4 Jim May Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:09:33 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/2008/11/the-purpose-of-it-all/#comment-4 We need to insist on definition by essentials, not the pedantic meanings used by evasive intellectuals. Socialism is not defined by who owns the means of production; it is defined by whether the individual is free to opt out of something, or not. If individuals are free to opt out of something, it's capitalism; if the individual is not free, it's socialism. We need to insist on definition by essentials, not the pedantic meanings used by evasive intellectuals.

Socialism is not defined by who owns the means of production; it is defined by whether the individual is free to opt out of something, or not. If individuals are free to opt out of something, it’s capitalism; if the individual is not free, it’s socialism.

]]> By: madmax http://www.newclarion.com/2008/11/the-purpose-of-it-all/#comment-3 madmax Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:21:35 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/2008/11/the-purpose-of-it-all/#comment-3 "This used to be called socialized medicine, but sophisticates these days consider any talk these days about socialism as unrefined. " This is extremely common with Leftists. To them Socialism is limited only to Soviet Russia. It doesn't apply to modern day America which they think is an "unregulated" system. George Sorros is a typical example of this. He believes Communism, Fascism AND Capitalism are all unrealistic systems because they are based on absolutes. And since absolutes can't exist in reality because we can never know reality (Popper is his favorite philosopher which means Kant really is) then a just society must avoid "free market ideologues" just the way it avoids fascist ones. And of course Bush and his fellow Republicans are "free market ideologues". So, according to this view, there is no socialism in America. Also, the Left will attack you if you say that Obama is a socialist. Even some Objectivists or libertarians I have seen have criticized the claim that Obama is a socialist. Which leads me to ask, would it be better to call Obama and Bush "interventionists" or "welfare-statists" rather than "socialists"? I really like the socialist label because it gets to the heart of the matter and I fear that the Left will discredit the term like they have essentially discredited the legitimate use of the term fascism. “This used to be called socialized medicine, but sophisticates these days consider any talk these days about socialism as unrefined. ”

This is extremely common with Leftists. To them Socialism is limited only to Soviet Russia. It doesn’t apply to modern day America which they think is an “unregulated” system. George Sorros is a typical example of this. He believes Communism, Fascism AND Capitalism are all unrealistic systems because they are based on absolutes. And since absolutes can’t exist in reality because we can never know reality (Popper is his favorite philosopher which means Kant really is) then a just society must avoid “free market ideologues” just the way it avoids fascist ones. And of course Bush and his fellow Republicans are “free market ideologues”. So, according to this view, there is no socialism in America.

Also, the Left will attack you if you say that Obama is a socialist. Even some Objectivists or libertarians I have seen have criticized the claim that Obama is a socialist. Which leads me to ask, would it be better to call Obama and Bush “interventionists” or “welfare-statists” rather than “socialists”? I really like the socialist label because it gets to the heart of the matter and I fear that the Left will discredit the term like they have essentially discredited the legitimate use of the term fascism.

]]> By: Harold http://www.newclarion.com/2008/11/the-purpose-of-it-all/#comment-2 Harold Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:51:34 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/2008/11/the-purpose-of-it-all/#comment-2 It's so ridiculous it's almost comical. I mean I've reached the point where I almost don't even care anymore. If people want this so bad (and they do) let them have it. “Obama will ask [lol] the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.” What, I wonder, is so responsible about taking people's money like this in the first place? And "give back"? Well, if I'm not mistaken it was theirs to begin with as they (or the head of the household) earned it. You can be sure it wasn't given to the IRS voluntarily, lol. Millions of voters may be naive (maybe) but millions of voters subscribe to the morality of altruism. The result is the same. The man wants hundreds of thousands of new government employees. Well, we'll see if he can do it with the help of Congress. Lol, and they call themselves progressives. What's so different about any of this? Not that new or old is necessarily good of course, but it's certainly presented that way. You might want to seriously consider implementing a system that allows users to preview posts; or at least edit them within a time limit. Regards It’s so ridiculous it’s almost comical. I mean I’ve reached the point where I almost don’t even care anymore. If people want this so bad (and they do) let them have it.

“Obama will ask [lol] the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.”

What, I wonder, is so responsible about taking people’s money like this in the first place? And “give back”? Well, if I’m not mistaken it was theirs to begin with as they (or the head of the household) earned it. You can be sure it wasn’t given to the IRS voluntarily, lol.

Millions of voters may be naive (maybe) but millions of voters subscribe to the morality of altruism. The result is the same.

The man wants hundreds of thousands of new government employees. Well, we’ll see if he can do it with the help of Congress. Lol, and they call themselves progressives. What’s so different about any of this? Not that new or old is necessarily good of course, but it’s certainly presented that way.

You might want to seriously consider implementing a system that allows users to preview posts; or at least edit them within a time limit.

Regards

]]>