MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Charles and David Koch
Jane Mayer has written what may be, because of its future repercussions, a history making article in the New Yorker.
Her exhaustively researched article shows that the brothers Koch of Koch Industries are supplying a great deal of the money fueling the vapors of America's loony right and are the major financial power behind the highly organized and sinister attack on climate change science in the USA.
I will assume that you have read Mayer's piece. I have little new to add to it, only my take on what I think it all means.
As a starting point, here is a sample list of organizations they fund, which I have taken from Sourcewatch:
1) Cato Institute $8,450,000
2) Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation $6,025,375
3) George Mason University $2,311,149
4) George Mason University Foundation, Inc. $2,074,893
6) Heritage Foundation, The $1,004,000
7) Institute for Justice $1,000,000
8) Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment $810,000
9) Reason Foundation, The $642,000
10) Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, The $504,000
12) Institute for Humane Studies $455,000
13) Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy $385,000
14) Washington Legal Foundation $350,000
15) Capital Research Center $340,000
16) Competitive Enterprise Institute $254,460
20) Ethics and Public Policy Center, Inc. $190,000
22) National Center for Policy Analysis $175,000
23) Citizens for Congressional Reform Foundation $175,000
24) Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc. $125,000
25) American Legislative Exchange Council $120,000
26) Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty $115,000
28) Political Economy Research Center, Inc. $80,000
29) Media Institute $60,000
30) National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship $60,000
31) University of Chicago $59,000
32) Defenders of Property Rights $55,000
33) University of Kansas Endowment Assocation $50,000
36) Texas Public Policy Foundation $44,500
37) Center for Individual Rights, The $40,000
38) Heartland Institute $40,000
39) Texas Justice Foundation $40,000
40) Institute for Policy Innovation $35,000
42) Center of the American Experiment $31,500
43) Atlas Economic Research Foundation $28,500
44) Young America's Foundation $25,000
45) Henry Hazlitt Foundation $25,000
47) Atlantic Legal Foundation $20,000
48) National Taxpayers Union Foundation $20,000
49) Families Against Mandatory Minimums $20,000
50) Philanthropy Roundtable $19,200
51) Free Enterprise Institute $15,000
52) John Locke Foundation $15,000
53) Hudson Institute, Inc. $12,650
54) Alexis de Tocqueville Institution $12,500
55) National Environmental Policy Institute $12,500
56) Washington University $11,500
57) Pacific Legal Foundation $10,000
58) American Council for Capital Formation $10,000
60) Institute for Political Economy $8,000
62) State Policy Network $6,500
64) Fraser Institute, The $5,000
65) Mackinac Center, The $5,000
66) Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation $5,000
68) Institute for Objectivist Studies $5,000
For me the real giveaway in the Koch's sucker list is the last one, the "Institute for Objectivist Studies"... in case you are not aware, "Objectivist" or "Objectivism" is the philosophy of Ayn Rand, who I (full disclosure) consider one of the most evil human beings to grace that most evil of centuries, the 20th. Perhaps the title of one of her books that gives the most of her thinking away in the shortest dose is called "The Virtue of Selfishness".
Her oeuvre is compounded of many volumes of novels and essays, articles and speeches: millions of verbs and nouns and assorted prepositions, you name it, but the British, who still can use our language with pungent economy, might simply define Rand's philosophy in a few choice words such as, "Bugger you Jack, I'm alright."
Rand's philosophy might be called the "secret doctrine" behind the Koch's manipulation of American democracy, just as it inspired Alan Greenspan and many other powerful people who have found in it a well constructed justification of their basest instincts.
I found the following quote from Mayer's article which positively reeks with Objectivism. The Kochs have funded an exhibition at the Smithsonian which makes global warming sound sort of like fun. (The bold, black, emphasis is entirely mine).
At the main entrance, viewers are confronted with a giant graph charting the Earth's temperature over the past ten million years, which notes that it is far cooler now than it was ten thousand years ago. Overhead, the text reads, "HUMANS EVOLVED IN RESPONSE TO A CHANGING WORLD."(...) The accompanying text says, "During the period in which humans evolved, Earth's temperature and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere fluctuated together." An interactive game in the exhibit suggests that humans will continue to adapt to climate change in the future. People may build "underground cities," developing "short, compact bodies" or "curved spines," so that "moving around in tight spaces will be no problem."
Such ideas uncannily echo the Koch message. The company's January newsletter to employees, for instance, argues that "fluctuations in the earth's climate predate humanity," and concludes, "Since we can't control Mother Nature, let's figure out how to get along with her changes."
People might wonder, "do the Kochs really think that they and their offspring will be exempt from the rigors of climate change? Are the presumably super rich future Kochs ready to go around with 'short compact bodies' or 'curved spines' in order to 'move around in tight spaces'?"
When they once asked George W. Bush about history's verdict on his administration he replied something to the effect that he didn't care because he'd be dead by then. I imagine that is the sort of attitude that the Kochs have toward the future of their country and our species, when nobody is looking or listening.
You might as well pose a question like that to a Mexican drug capo like the ones who run Los Zetas. These are people who take what they want and are just as nasty as they have to be to get it. The Kochs, having been born rich, haven't had to take the same risks that the Zetas do, but we are still talking about sociopathic behavior whose only final value and measure is money and power.
Probably, if they think or care much about the world their grandchildren will live in, they picture them living in gated and heavily fortified communities, somewhere in a newly verdant Antarctic, maintained in glowing eternal health by miraculous genetic manipulations and tended by starved sex slaves, the tattered remnants of the world's once teeming billions, whom the neo-Kochs breed and consume like we breed and consume battery chickens today.
What Mayer's article and the Sourcewatch list I have reprinted reminds me most of is Terry Southern's 1960s period piece, "The Magic Christian" and the Peter Sellers film version of it: a simple allegory of the things that people will do for money. At the time the film seemed way over the top, but in light of what the Kochs are doing to American politics and to the air that the entire world breathes, "The Magic Christian" seems quite restrained.
I do see a tiny ray of light in all this. It may be that the apparent divisions in American society, that the great British historian Eric Hobsbawm calls the deepest divisions among our people since our Civil War, are more artificial than they appear to us now and that if the manipulation of peoples "feelings" and the darkening of their intelligence by people such as the Kochs and Rupert Murdoch becomes more widely recognized, sanity may rear its pretty head again... or maybe the Kochs will just have to personally buy us all off... one at a time Magic Christian style.
Comments
So the Koch's put their money where their ideas are. So what. Who wouldn't do that? How about trying to debate the arguments that these various organizations put forth?
by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 4:00pm
A meaty and informative post, David. Thanks!
by Doctor Cleveland on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 4:10pm
Very good post, David. Now I'm just hoping we could crank up the evolution machine so we can start getting them curved spines and small bodies in a couple hundred years. Because really, the main issue we're all faving is - lazy evolution!
;)
by William K. Wolfrum on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 4:34pm
Rather than size-up Rand in a title, perhaps you can grace us with Ran's definition of selfishness, as it is completely different than the definition you are hoping your readers have in mind. Perhaps you yourself do not know and simply took the word at current face-value? Let's not be lazy or deliberately misleading now.
by Antony (not verified) on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 4:43pm
An objectivist, by God!
by David Seaton on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 1:34am
Anybody with any familiarity with Ayn Rand (and that's most dagbloggers) are already familiar with her definition of selfishness, and it's not as different from how most of us use the word as some objectivists like to pretend. That said, if it really is so different (as you seem to believe), why didn't she use a different word? Was she being lazy or deliberately misleading?
by Atheist (not verified) on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 9:22am
If you take those top five names on the list, you've basically got the entire cabal of purveyors of right-wing economic snake oil, with the possible exceptions of the University of Chicago and Auburn University.
And don't look now, but your name-dropping of Rand is already bringing in the libertarians! One thing you might want to know about Dagblog is that it is indexed by Google News, so you can expect certain keywords to bring in certain folk from the wilderness. Enjoy!
by DF on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 4:44pm
by Austin Train on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 12:44am
Well here is one libertarian that has been brought!
We don't hit and run at all, we love debating this sht. We are quite solid on both the theoretical and applied philosophy you try to put down. Jeesh, whenever a system has let in even a little bit of libertarian philosophy it shoots through the roof with economic success. Far from discredited, it is the only viable solution.
You are obviously of the left/liberal persuasion - you (should) of course know that libertarians are half leftists as well, at least leftists of the traditional American bent.
We are for gay marriage, stem cell research, legalization of marijuana (and all other drugs as well), legal prostitution, legal gambling (is that leftist or rightist, I forget), strong privacy rights, strong free speech rights, end of corporate welfare/subsidies and govt favoritism, separation of church & state, and a whole slew of other liberal ideals.
I myself come from a leftist political philosophy (same as did John Stossel), and as do many conservative/rightists also find themselves actually libertarians instead (I grew up in Woodstock NY and was a flower child that stayed in a commune). Our philosophical pedigree stems from a different core value than either leftists or rightist, who both believe in imposing their view of economic or social justice by the power of the state. We believe in no govt'l imposition, just the defense of our liberties and properties.
I am not an Objectivist, although the philosophies somewhat overlap, but that doesn't say much, since libertarian philosophies overlap many other political philosophies as well.
I always was intrigued to find people out there who are actually anti-libertarian, and now I see a strong thrust in that direction. Amazing.
What was it that was said - First they ignore you, then they make fun of you, then they fight you . . .
Well it looks like libertarians have reached the "fight you" stage. Touche'
by Gary Trieste (not verified) on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 3:47am
In fact, you've reached the "Real Marxism has never been tried!" stage of butthurt calculated outrage the communists tried to use to cover both their real-world and "philosophical" failures.
Even your aspirational brand of faux-libertarianism would be an unmitigated disaster of a similar magnitude as we saw in Soviet Russia, though of rather different nature.
While I do favor a very few of the things you list, I find most of the rest of your attempts at philosophy to be somewhere between pathetic and delusional.
Like any other Utopianist variant, you fail to take the hardwired flaws in human nature into account.
Not that it's your only failing, or anything even remotely close.
by Austin Train on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 9:17am
Butthurt? What are you, 12?
Utopian? Do you really know what libertarianism is.?
Libertarian political philosophy is the least expective of Utopia than any other proposed govt'l model. It fully anticipates the failings and selfish nature of mankind, and provides a structure where anyone can be as "not with program" as they feel like, and still be a successful society. But it doesn't depend on it either, whereas anyone can be as charitable as they like too and be rewarded for that as well.
And what is "faux-libertarianism"? I am talking about straightup run-of-the-mill libertarianism. Nothing faux about it.
As I look over your post, I see that you have said nothing of content. It seems that your whining does not even rise above the level of epithets; calling me names is quite easy, and again takes only the mentality of a 12 year old.
If you actually had something say, other than "you have cooties", then I think you'd say it.
by Gary Trieste (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 8:36am
Um, that quote doesn't reek of Objectivism. Please explain the connection because I don't see it at all.
by Patrick (not verified) on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 5:07pm
Just for you, David ;)
by William K. Wolfrum on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 6:23pm
Genius.
by Doctor Cleveland on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 11:39pm
Wonderful!
by David Seaton on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 1:36am
I think that much more needs to be said about Ayn Rand's influence. This is a major fracture line of the American right and a contradiction that most Americans don't face.
A huge percentage of the American right are vocally Christian and there is no philosophy as at variance with the teachings of Jesus Christ than Ayn Rand... So I disagree that it is useless to speak about her... quite the contrary. American Christians should be aware of the ideology of the people whose money they are taking... as the man said, "you cannot serve two masters".
by David Seaton on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 2:30am
Of course, there are many Americans who self-identify as Christian and don't seem to care at all about what their religion teaches. The stultifying and blood-thirsty response to 9/11 from the American Christian Right put this on national display. How many Christian leaders reminded their flock of turning the other cheek? Forget all that - we're too busy putting scripture on rifle scopes.
by DF on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 11:16am
Thanks for the giggle. I found the rest of the post, although well-informed and interesting, utterly depressing. I began to learn the values of sharing and empathy before I even began to read. I don't understand how they are not universal.
by Orlando on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 7:47pm
I take it you are unaware that Ayn Rand and other Objectivists wanted/want to abolish the Fed, not run it? Greenspan may have been a protégé of Rand thirty years ago, but he's little more than a bureaucratic climber now. He's a sellout.
The problem with massively-funded government science is that it's done without people's consent (using stolen money, i.e. taxes), and therefore cannot possibly reflect the best judgment of everyone in society on any particular issue. It weights findings and research inexorably in favor of trendy (and inevitably authoritarian) political policy, not truth.
As far as funding rightist organizations, why shouldn't they? At least they are doing something they *chose* to do with their money, as opposed to the money that is taken forcibly in taxes, which is used without their consent to fund things that are not in their interest, or humanity's. No, I don't buy the idea that warmists have mankind's best interests in mind.
I'll choose reason, freedom, and the Industrial Revolution, thank you very much.
by Jeff Montgomery (not verified) on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 12:11am
"Little more than a bureaucratic climber" is a funny way to describe a man who ran the Federal Reserve for 20 years.
Also, taxes aren't stolen. They're given with consent. If you don't consent, you can move to another country that doesn't levy taxes. Try Somalia. There hasn't been a stable government to "steal" your tax money there for, well, about the duration of Greenspan's tenure at the Fed. I'm sure you could find there all the truth and freedom that you could handle.
by DF on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 12:22am
by Orlando on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 1:30am
As usual, semi-educated opinionisms from someone who only has a casual idea of what libertarianism is.
What it is not, is Anarchism. What you cite is the result of anyone doing anything they want, anywhere anytime anyhow.
Libertarianism doesn't cotton to such laziness and irresponsibility to the point where it starts fkn with other people's lives.
That is what the State should be for, enforcing and mediating the conflicts that people put upon others by their irresponsible and inconsiderate behavior.
"Ain't nobody's business if I do" works great IF it is nobody's business or life that you are actively harming. But when you do, then you can sue, and use the fist of the State against your aggressors.
Read up on it. Libertarianism is NOT Anarchism.
by Gary Trieste (not verified) on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 3:57am
Hobsbawm calls the Thatcher-Reagan brand of libertarianism, "The anarchism of the lower-middle class".
I think that is perfect: some poor duffer with a paunch, whose only income is his salary, whose only significant property is the house he lives in (which is mortgaged) puts a Glock on his hip, walks into Starbucks and thinks he is free.
American are not really stupid,but making them stupid is a huge industry.
by David Seaton on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 6:09am
Who the flock cares what Hobsbawm calls it. Thatcher and Reagan came nowhere near libertarianism. They espoused quite standard neo-Conservatist policies, not libertarian ones. Were they for the legalization, or even decriminalization of drugs? No. That is a fairly obvious touchstone to reveal where they're coming from - there were so many more.
Of course you picked some random quote, and think its perfect. It is also undescriptive of libertarianism, and suits your uninformed view. You then go on to cite a scenario that also has nothing to do with libertarianism.
I know what you would like to say, but you have no finesse, and can't support it with anything other than your opinion masquerading as Intellectualism.
by Gary Trieste (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 9:13am
Pollution is not tantamount to anarchy. It's a collective action problem.
As for what the state should actually be for, your description isn't really informative.
by DF on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 10:27am
Of course its not informative. This is not the forum for informative, it is a forum that presumes the conversants have a foundation on what they're talking about. It is obvious that they don't, but that's besides the point.
You want informative, be more specific on your question, I can inform quite well if asked.
Pollution is both a collective insult and an individual one. In libertariansim, it is when the individual is aggressed or affronted by another person or entity, that he has a cause of action that he can complain to the govt and have the govt take up that complaint, or he can prosecute it himself, there would be no monopoly on prosecution like we have in our current system of govt.
by Gary Trieste (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 9:29am
The biggest problem for libertarianism is its inability in general to treat problems like "the tragedy of the commons". Simiarly, it's not good at internalizing costs that are easily externalized (such as pollution).
by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 9:32am
Typical assumption from the weak of argument: say the person who has the counter idea hasn't read anything and glibly make blanket distinctions instead of elucidating the difference. There's a whole range of thought under the L word. The context here on this page isn't so broad however, which may be lost on you.
The Koch bros. are a stripe of libertarianism. You can speak for yourself and I'll respect that that's what you believe. People who back the Koch's play are either unconcerned with whether or not someone else's freedom to breathe, (or, hey, not have them shovel a million dollars up in here to get a RUINOUS prop 23 on the ballot to circumvent the laws in place, lying that it's 'a jobs bill' when it will kill so many jobs.) 'fvckn with other people's lives' or they, you?, conveneniently side step that part.
by J Civil (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 12:17pm
Are the Koch's libertarian? If they (or those who support them) support the removal of someone else's right to breathe then they are not. That would be an active infringement on someone else's liberty.
If you are saying that they don't consider it their legal responsibility, when they are not the cause of the pollution, then yes that would be a libertarian view. But it is also the current legal view, so I don't know what distinction you are making.
Or are you just making a random comment from your opinion implying that it is everyone's legal obligation to stop one polluter from polluting another person's property? That would be the socialist way - everybody's problem is your own.
by Gary Trieste (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 9:47am
But what if they are the cause of the pollution, but don't think the pollution is a problem? Or, what if they don't consider something (e.g., CO2) to be pollution, while others do? Are they then allowed to foist it on to us, free of charge?
by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 9:52am
It takes three things to form a civil tort; [1] a legal duty to another person, [2] a failure to uphold that duty, and [3] and injury caused by that failure.
If someone is the cause of pollution, it is not up to them to conclude or not-conclude it to be a problem. It is an assertion that a plaintiff makes. If the plaintiff can prove all three elements to a trier of fact, be it in arbitration or at a court trial, then he has proven his tort claim, he then has a legal right to collect damages against the polluter.
Of course you would have to prove all elements. It is a standard civil claim.
Recently there was a court decision handed down from the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing a jury decision finding damages for property owners who sued because of plutonium contamination in their soil from an old weapons mfr who apparently didn't contain the waste properly.
They sued on two points, [1] that the risk of illness from the plutonium was an injury per se, and [2] that their property values were depressed due to the presence of plutonium.
The appellate court ruled that the plaintiffs should lose on both claims, asserting that a risk of injury was not an injury, and that the property values were not affected by the presence of plutonium.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/03/1807491/court-throws-out-926-million-rocky.html
I could perhaps agree with the first conclusion, although it is iffy, but the second conclusion is a travesty of justice. Obviously a property w/o plutonium in the soil is going to worth more than that same property with radioactive soil.
That travesty notwithstanding, this is how pollution should be addressed; an aggrieved plaintiff taking on the aggressor. Only, it needs to be done in a lot faster fashion, the delays themselves are breach of due process in my opinion.
by Gary Trieste (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 4:51pm
Your reasoning is all very sound. The problem, in my opnion, is what you're taking as your axioms. The justice system is slow. It would most likely be even slower if it were being funded through some sort of libertarian basis. (How would libertarians fund the justice system?) Additionally, the justice system relies on a system of law. As your example demonstrates, it's not trivial for a judge to decide either what constitutes injury or a decrease in property values. Don't get me wrong: our current system has numerous flaws as well. I just think it's far easier to do worse than to do better.
by Atheist (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 5:00pm
You only wish you had gotten off the topic of economics! What you describe is a classic collective action problem. There's whole sub-field of economics called public choice theory that deals with this stuff. And, from what I've read, libertarians don't generally have an answer for the type of problem that you describe. Because they propose private ownership and market solutions for everything, they either don't have answers to this sort of conundrum or their answers end up looking suspiciously like what they object to (or they apparently want us to to STFU, move underground and hurry up growing those curved spines because all of that environmental damage isn't really a problem, it's just the beginning of a fun, new adventure!).
I'll give an example. Let's say you wanted to try to solve the garbage problem you describe with private ownership. So you put all public spaces within town limits into private hands, say via an auction process. Now someone owns it. We'll also have to assume that this owner is motivated to clean up the trash, which wouldn't necessarily be the case (just think of anyone you've ever known who has totally neglected something of value that they own privately). How are they going to keep the place clean? Well, there's already garbage everywhere, so they'll have to hire someone to clean it up. Also, they'll want to prevent garbage from being deposited everywhere in the future, so they'll need to hire someone to police the area.
Shit. Now we've got people on the payroll, which is expensive. Owning this space is costing some serious money. In order to get in the black, now we have to charge people to access the area (but we dare not call it a tax!) and that will probably also involve some profit margin to make all of this space management worth out while.
Doesn't this all sound suspiciously like exactly what governments do to solve this sort of problem? It essentially is, with one big difference. The people who use the space now have only one choice: to pay to use the space or not. They have no claim to rights over the space whatsoever and no oversight to speak of, which they would have with in a system of democratic public ownership. It also doesn't bode well for things like redress of grievance in the case of over-zealous policing, etc.
by DF on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 10:25am
by Orlando on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 10:54am
I agree about the similarities between Libertarianism and Communism. They seem to me to be two sides of the same utopian coin, with one side advocating for the public ownership of everything in the name of the public good and the other arguing for the private ownership of everything in the name of the private good, but neither fully addresses the various and complex problems that actually occur in the real world. Interestingly enough, they both still rely on some kind of collective organization (ie government) to achieve stated goals, but in Communism the proposed system of government is too large because it includes everyone and in Libertarianism it is too small since it only includes the owners. Since it seems we agree on that, I suppose we'll have to find another topic to argue about!
Hope you're enjoying Indonesia despite the loose garbage and open sewers. Even though I've been too busy this year to write or comment regularly, I still do try to stop by and read when I can and it's been interesting to read about journeys.
by DF on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 11:09am
I support collective ownership, and even administration of what is owned by the government - if that ownership arrangement is voluntary, and there is a strict accounting for the monies involved (collected and spent) in that administration, and direct (collective) say in how it is administered. (Also no govt monopoly, and no compulsory participation, on those administrative services)
Sometimes it is more practical to have the government administer something than a private concern. But the key here is voluntaryism (or volition).
Nobody should be forced to pay for services they don't want to use. Nobody should be forced to use one specific services provider, and there should never be a disconnect between the costs of administration and the fees/taxes collected for those services.
And I agree that many libertarians do not have a good answer to the collective action problem, in my opinion. What I say here, although still purely libertarian, is often knee-jerk rejected by most libertarians, because it has scary words in it for them, like "collective ownership" and "government services". But that is more of a symptom of a young political movement, than of a fundamental problem with libertarianism.
by Gary Trieste (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 10:02am
You can't indiscriminately add "-ist" the the end of an adjective and make it a noun. Sometimes, it works, i.e. "objectivist," and sometimes it doesn't, i.e. "warmist." What the hell is a warmist? (Just because you find it on the internet doesn't make it okay.)
by Orlando on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 1:23am
David,
I would suggest to you that perhaps Mayer's piece is so slanted in one direction that it should have been presented as an opinion piece rather than a piece of investigative journalism. Perhaps if she followed this piece up with one about George Soros I would feel a little better knowing that she is on a true mission rather than just a distinctly left-wing mission.
The Koch's use their money and influence just as many, many others do who are on the other end of the political spectrum.
by JGR (not verified) on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 7:44am
So it's time for the "tu quoque" replies already?
by Austin Train on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 9:18am
"Je suis le rubber, tu es le glue."
by Doctor Cleveland on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 11:46am
The difference is that Soro's money is not spent only on furthering his business interests and everything the Koch spend does. I
by David Seaton on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 9:21am
I'm always amused when someone throws out the old tired "Screw you, I've got mine." line. Note they refuse to state their position in the same terms which would be , "Screw you, I'm taking yours."
Given two people standing before me each espousing one of those two lines, I'm not so worried about the guy that 'has his'.
The guy with the intent to steal from me, yeah, little more worriesome, because at the end of his sentence is always a means of force to ensure he gets what he wants.
by Larry (not verified) on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 7:48am
How bout stealing the air from your lungs?... That's what the Kochs are up to.
by David Seaton on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 9:22am
Weird I am breathing just fine. What force have they used to 'steal' anything?
by Larry (not verified) on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 9:43am
Read up on the Tragedy of the Commons. It's a common problem in game theory that has much bearing here. Basically, industries are dumping waste products into the atmosphere (and rivers), which ultimately cause us to pay, one way or the other, for their profits. It's also known as externalizing versus internalizing costs.
by Atheist (not verified) on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 9:52am
Steal? What utter hype. You mean you resent being considered as a citizen with responsibilities such as contributing to the revenue to the point that you have to chidlishly characterize it 'you are stealking from me'. You're parroting a 'theme' of Atlas Shrugged, which was written by a sociopath for likewise childish and asocial mentalities. What force? The rule of law is so objectionable to you you have to present it in this same kind of childish 'me me me MINE!' sort of hype.
Grow up.
by J Civil (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 11:59am
Man, reading Randians on the internet always makes me feel like John Locke and Adam Smith are outrageous hippies. Taxes are "stolen money." Hee.
Please, my new Randian friends, why don't you behave as Rand suggests. Stop banding together into your bands of mediocre little men, led by your own Monksworth Tooheys, and go Galt.
by Doctor Cleveland on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 9:27am
Wouldn't finding a true Randian (insert true Scotsman rebuttal here) on the internet be kinda like finding an Amish on the internet?
by Atheist (not verified) on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 9:31am
I never tire of the irony of reading Libertarian screeds scratched across the digital glow of this DARPA creation.
by DF on Wed, 09/01/2010 - 11:18am
Absolutely. Follow your own line of 'reasoning' and grow a pair, Go Galt. Head 'em on out. boys. See ya.
Tip: Try Somalia, there's no gummint there I heard. True Freedom! You'd be all on your own, no more burden of being a citizen. Good luck! Hire a private army and GO FOR IT.
by J Civil (not verified) on Mon, 09/06/2010 - 12:05pm
Counter tip:
Read my screed. Libertarianism is not no-government. Libertarianism is not Anarchism.
Somalia is close to Anarchy. I wouldn't want to live there, or hire my own army.
by Gary Trieste (not verified) on Tue, 09/07/2010 - 4:56pm
Ayn Rand is one of most evil human beings? Oh my God, you are a moron, David.
by johnny (not verified) on Mon, 09/13/2010 - 8:16am
If thinking Ayn Rand is evil is to be a moron, I'll wear the badge with pride.
by David Seaton on Mon, 09/13/2010 - 8:35am
While I won't call you a moron, David, I'm going to go with my friend Hanlon on this one: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. I think Ayn Rand really believed the stuff she wrote.
by Atheist (not verified) on Mon, 09/13/2010 - 10:42am