Perhaps the GOP should think twice about worshipping Ayn Rand

[D_Martin van Burden]

Believe it or not, a religiously affiliated political group put up a pretty scathing ad urging GOP members to think twice about ascribing to Ayn Rand's morality as written in her books.

Paul Ryan’s Ayn Rand Problem | Swampland

 

[houtx48]

Does anyone believe that Ayn Rand crap after they get out of their twenties? Then when Ralph Reed was mentioned you knew the article had no legs.

 

[kepiblanc]

Does anyone believe that Ayn Rand crap after they get out of their twenties? Then when Ralph Reed was mentioned you knew the article had no legs.

The question ought to be does anybody believe that Karl Marx crap after they get out of their twenties, and sadly, the answer is yes, because how else would you explain how lefty politicians the world over win elections?

 

[vince]

Believe it or not, a religiously affiliated political group put up a pretty scathing ad urging GOP members to think twice about ascribing to Ayn Rand's morality as written in her books.

Paul Ryan’s Ayn Rand Problem | Swampland

Paul Ryan requires his staffers to read Atlas Shrugged and hands out copies of it as gifts. I wonder what he would have to say about the fact that Ayn Rand collected Social Security and Medicare benefits. Yet "Rand herself called altruism a “basic evil” and referred to those who perpetuate the system of taxation and redistribution as “looters” and “moochers.”


Yo, Paul Ryan! Atlas Didn't Shrug, She Put Her Hand Out | Crooks and Liars


I hope this story gets some legs because it will be a great theater of the absurd to watch the Republican leadership and the religious right spin it.


They'll probably get away with it because 99% of people have no idea about Ayn Rand, and all those names are so confusabuuble- Paul Ryan, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, Rand Paul... Who can keep track???


Are any of them related to Rupaul?

 

[itsthepopei]

Something that always bothered me about the political breakdown was that the so called Christian Right only accepted the hateful parts IE women's rights and gay bashing as defining factors for there movement. I always figured it had something to do with saving face as if they were to ask themselves "wwjd" they would be liberals. The republican party trying to rebrand itself as the party for the economy may cause a large portion of its base to become disillusioned if they notice how little they have in common interest wise to their party.

 

[BF2K]

The surprise for the Democrats in 2012 will be that the "Conservatives" are no longer only the religious right. They are a group of people, undefined, without a specific leader that believes in the foundation of the US Constitution, individual liberties AND responsibilities. There are many things that I disagree with Ayn Rand about but the one thing she did understand is that each individual should have the right to contract a job, a relationship or anything else as an individual and not as a "collective." Ayn Rand's philosophy is impossible because information is not free and most individuals are not willing to put their asses on the line to accept the responsibilities of their actions.

 

[itsthepopei]

she also argues for the removal of minimum wage

 

[D_Ben Twilly]

Removing minimum wage is about freedom of enterprise. Making legal requirements on employers toward their employees does do some good things, but it also imposes on both sides. For employers, each thing they're bound by law to do for their employees makes it that much more burdensome to employ workers (fact: you can pay more people $6 than $9). For employees, each thing their employers are bound by law to do for them makes it that much harder to negotiate (fact: you'll get the job over all the other equal applicants if you'll take $6 and they all demand $9, and the company is allowed to make that arrangement). All money comes from some limited account or other, and everyone is more powerful if minimums and maximums are not imposed from higher up. The fact that we'd like everyone to live comfortably doesn't change that reality.

 

[itsthepopei]

Removing minimum wage is about freedom of enterprise. Making legal requirements on employers toward their employees does do some good things, but it also imposes on both sides. For employers, each thing they're bound by law to do for their employees makes it that much more burdensome to employ workers (fact: you can pay more people $6 than $9). For employees, each thing their employers are bound by law to do for them makes it that much harder to negotiate (fact: you'll get the job over all the other equal applicants if you'll take $6 and they all demand $9, and the company is allowed to make that arrangement). All money comes from some limited account or other, and everyone is more powerful if minimums and maximums are not imposed from higher up. The fact that we'd like everyone to live comfortably doesn't change that reality.

you could also make the argument that the employer couldn't make anything without employees thus endebting said person to the people who work to accomplish there dream.

 

[deleted15807]

Ayn Rand's philosophy is impossible because information is not free and most individuals are not willing to put their asses on the line to accept the responsibilities of their actions.

Can you expand on that idea 'accept the responsibilities of their actions'? What exactly does that mean? I've heard that sermonized before.

 

[D_Ben Twilly]

you could also make the argument that the employer couldn't make anything without employees thus endebting said person to the people who work to accomplish there dream.

In theory, but not in practice. When you're paying someone for their work, you don't owe them a thing.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

In theory, but not in practice. When you're paying someone for their work, you don't owe them a thing.

Ummmmmmm... OK. You're gonna have to explain that one.
If an employer contractually hires another to do a job for a specific form of compensation and it is done to the employer's satisfaction, how is it that the employer doesn't owe the worker doing the labor a thing?

 

[phillyhangin]

(fact: you can pay more people $6 than $9).
...
The fact that we'd like everyone to live comfortably doesn't change that reality.

My issue with this is that yes, you can hire more people at $6 than at $9, but then if those people making $6 can't afford to meet their basic needs, that creates problems elsewhere and usually results in some form of government expenditure. So, by paying $6 instead of $9, you might "save money" in the short term, but there's no real savings in the long term: Someone - usually taxpayers (including business tax payers) - has to make up the shortfall; otherwise we have people living in poverty who can't meet their basic needs, which contributes to crime (which affects everyone), poor public health (which affects everyone), the disintegration of social capital (which affects everyone) and so forth.

(I'm simplifying here because we're assuming that there is only one source of income per household; many of the "working poor" actually can meet their basic needs, but only with multiple sources of income per household. This creates plenty of problems of its own - especially when it comes to raising a family - and if even one of those sources of income dries up - such as during a recession - then all of the other issues come into play as well.)

To me, I feel that it's better simply to pay the $9 up front to someone who is actually working for it and helping to generate a profit, rather than pay $6 to "save money" and then have to deal with the rest of the problems - only to get stuck with a tax bill for the extra money anyway. That's just my personal take on it, though.

 

[D_Ben Twilly]

To me, I feel that it's better simply to pay the $9 up front to someone who is actually working for it and helping to generate a profit, rather than pay $6 to "save money" and then have to deal with the rest of the problems - only to get stuck with a tax bill for the extra money anyway. That's just my personal take on it, though.

But you assume certain things, especially that it's a given for the government to pick up the remainder of the bill. Maybe part of the problem is that we teach survival of the fittest in public schools but are too bashful to let it be part of our reality. Harsh but true.

And I can see that you feel it's better to pay the $9, but do you think it should necessarily be a requirement on employers that the $9 be paid? It starts getting Orwellian at that point.

Ummmmmmm... OK. You're gonna have to explain that one.
If an employer contractually hires another to do a job for a specific form of compensation and it is done to the employer's satisfaction, how is it that the employer doesn't owe the worker doing the labor a thing?

Yes, of course, compensation is to be expected. But don't forget the context of my comment, which was a response to someone else's suggestion that because workers are an integral part of business, their needs and desires supercede those of the owners. An agreed-upon wage is one thing, but that suggestion is quite another.

 

[TomCat84]

The surprise for the Democrats in 2012 will be that the "Conservatives" are no longer only the religious right.

Actually, "Conservatives" will get the surprise, and they will wonder how in hell it was possible for them to so badly misread the political climate.

 

[itsthepopei]

Yes, of course, compensation is to be expected. But don't forget the context of my comment, which was a response to someone else's suggestion that because workers are an integral part of business, their needs and desires supercede those of the owners. An agreed-upon wage is one thing, but that suggestion is quite another.

Actually i was saying workers needs should be a high priority for a business i was not arguing the wants of those working for you should supersede your own. if someone is willing to devote 8 to 10 hrs a day to make your dream come true the only reason they shouldn't be paid enough to live on.

 

[vince]

Back at the original topic. How will the American religious right deal with the reality that their economic guru is a follower of a philosopher who thought that religion is complete fallacy and a waste of time?

 

[D_Ben Twilly]

Actually i was saying workers needs should be a high priority for a business i was not arguing the wants of those working for you should supersede your own. if someone is willing to devote 8 to 10 hrs a day to make your dream come true the only reason they shouldn't be paid enough to live on.

And I'm saying it should be at the discretion of the people involved. If workers satisfactory to the employer are willing to accept a lower wage, capitalism triumphs and those with higher demands can seek employment elsewhere. If everyone agrees that it's not feasible to work for less than a certain amount, employers will have to meet the going rate for what is considered decent compensation. But the government should NOT be dictating any of that.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

And I'm saying it should be at the discretion of the people involved. If workers satisfactory to the employer are willing to accept a lower wage, capitalism triumphs and those with higher demands can seek employment elsewhere. If everyone agrees that it's not feasible to work for less than a certain amount, employers will have to meet the going rate for what is considered decent compensation. But the government should NOT be dictating any of that.

If you want to blindly assume that employers are going to understand the struggles of their employees and pay them accordingly then more power to you.

The fact is, without any form of regulation by the government to establish some kind of civilized standards for workers, employers would still be able to treat workers as poorly as they want to. Without things like the minimum wage, many people would be working for the same pennies as an undocumented worker. They could establish whatever hours they want and demand that you do them or get fired. If you or anyone in your family gets sick, too bad. You wouldn't be able to take care of them since you wouldn't get any vacation and/or sick days. God forbid if you decide to have a baby while you're employed... that would be probable cause to fire you too since there's no maternity or parental leave policies. Hell, why don't we hire the baby once its old enough to walk? Child Labor Laws wouldn't be in effect anymore either, so that 8 year old may not be able to go get an education because he's needed at the local supermarket to do a clean up on Aisle 5.

You have this notion that employers are going to fight to get the best people on the workforce, when in reality they have more than enough incentive to turn down the more expensive candidates and go for lower priced ones even with the current regulations our government have in place. Ultimately, they're all about saving money... which is why corporations are creating more jobs overseas than in our own country. As soon as one employer is able to find someone who can do what they need for less, the majority of others follow suit and adjust their bottom lines so they can do the same thing. There's only a competition when there aren't enough workers to go around for the jobs they need to get done. And now that we're in a global economy, it's going to take a lot more than some accepted "golden rule" to fix it.

 

[D_Ben Twilly]

If you want to blindly assume that employers are going to understand the struggles of their employees and pay them accordingly then more power to you.

I don't assume that they will understand. I assume, rightly, that if workers agreed, the hand of the employer would be forced to meet their demands (ie, the basic concept of a labor union). Of course, that won't happen full-scale. Those who demand more will be out of luck, and those who are willing to settle will prevail. That may not fully protect the workers, but then they're not in charge - the people who pay out the money are. And make no mistake: employers will pay what it takes to keep those who are worth it to them. If that weren't true, no one would make more than minimum wage in a system that imposes one.

And don't exaggerate. While the lack of a set minimum wage was part of the "child labor" era, that one factor wouldn't necessarily re-create that entire picture automatically. An inability to judge the parts separate from the whole is just as bad as the inverse.