Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ayn Rand's Vision of Galt's Gulch Has Become Reality as of Today

dollarvigilante.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: Ayn Rand's Vision of Galt's Gulch Has Become Reality as of Today

#11

Post by troym »

RokStdy wrote: post #9
troym wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taking advantage of the infrastructure, market, and support of one country only to flee to a tax haven abroad is neither moral nor respectable. A thief comes into your home and takes half of your property. He's done the same with your neighbors, and down the street, he's handing out some of the goods to whomever stops by. Is it moral or respectable for you to go down the street, get something back, and then move ou…

That analogy is a fantastic failure. I was going to try to rebut it with some sort of home owner's association analogy, but why bother. The idea of the tax man as a thief in the night is just silly.

> The idea of the tax man as a thief in the night is just silly.

Oh, really? Instead of argument by assertion, let's try an idea.

Your neighbor comes and takes your bicycle without your permission and won't give it back. Theft? Sure.

Your neighbor comes in with one of his friends, and they take your bike together, same circumstance. Theft? Sure.

Your neighbor comes in with 2 of his friends, 3, 4, etc. At what point is it no longer theft? 51%, you say? What magically happened at that point? I say nothing: theft is still theft, irrespective of the claims of the majority.

Re: Ayn Rand's Vision of Galt's Gulch Has Become Reality as of Today

#13

Post by tzs »

troym wrote: post #11
RokStdy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That analogy is a fantastic failure. I was going to try to rebut it with some sort of home owner's association analogy, but why bother. The idea of the tax man as a thief in the night is just silly.

> The idea of the tax man as a thief in the night is just silly. Oh, really? Instead of argument by assertion, let's try an idea. Your neighbor comes and takes your bicycle without your permission and won't give it back. Theft? Sure. Your neighbor comes in with one of his friends, and they take your bike together, same circumstance. Theft? Sure. Your neighbor comes in with 2 of his friends, 3, 4, etc. At what point i…

It's no longer theft when they are taking the bicycle to collect on a debt you owe and where bicycles are the normal form in which debts of this kind a repaid.

Taxes, as Ben Franklin noted, are payment on the debt that you owe for making use of the benefits society provides for you.

Re: Ayn Rand's Vision of Galt's Gulch Has Become Reality as of Today

#15

Post by xemoka »

troym wrote: post #11
RokStdy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That analogy is a fantastic failure. I was going to try to rebut it with some sort of home owner's association analogy, but why bother. The idea of the tax man as a thief in the night is just silly.

> The idea of the tax man as a thief in the night is just silly. Oh, really? Instead of argument by assertion, let's try an idea. Your neighbor comes and takes your bicycle without your permission and won't give it back. Theft? Sure. Your neighbor comes in with one of his friends, and they take your bike together, same circumstance. Theft? Sure. Your neighbor comes in with 2 of his friends, 3, 4, etc. At what point i…

Theft is not exchanged. You're completely ignoring the fact that the government is providing things in return.

This gentleman is a Canadian Expat, the government in Canada is not depriving its citizens for nothing in return. The redistribution of wealth is important for an effective society. It protects the 'wealthy' from the uprising of the peasants/proletariat/commoners, hoarding all the wealth does no good to the wealthy—they often lose their heads. So instead they lose a piece of, what they consider, their rightfully earned pie, in exchange for the betterment of all and the stability of a society—along with all its benefits. "Smart indentureship"

Sure, you can argue that what they are providing in return does not equate the amount you're giving them, but guess what: you agreed to live and earn in this society. Good riddance to those who do not see this, but don't be taking what is not yours as the door hits you on your way out—you earned it under the agreements and covenants of the 'System'.

Thanks for the Straw man.

Re: Ayn Rand's Vision of Galt's Gulch Has Become Reality as of Today

#16

Post by ignostic »

p3anoman wrote: post #6
api wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. The West is full of self-righteous superficial Randians (who have never read her nonfiction in most cases) who in reality are welfare beneficiaries on a massive scale. It's only socialism if it's going into someone else's pocket. Rand's philosophy contains some interesting points, but it's also extremely naive in a lot of ways. It's clear that she had little contact with the actual realitie…

Its naive only becaue it is idealist. If you have read her non-fiction, The Romantic Manifesto might give you the reasoning behind it. Art is the realm of the ideal, not the real. (I often give the analogy of the cave painters wasting their time painting skinny meatless cattle (which may have been the reality) instead of fat cattle that would feed their tribe for months...). And we all know what ideals are don't we?

Rand built "exaggerated" characters, that's true. Unfortunately the style results in a bunch of cheesy straw men.

The business leaders like Rearden are hard-working, smart, and good looking. The villains are stupid unattractive leeches, or at best weak and cowering pushovers. Nowhere in those books will you find an intelligent argument in favor or utilitarianism or moderate altruism.

Rand was guilty of disingenuous representation of opposing views, which shouldn't be totally excused under the guise of the romantic style.

Re: Ayn Rand's Vision of Galt's Gulch Has Become Reality as of Today

#17

Post by chrisbennet »

troym wrote: post #7
ignostic wrote: post #2

I'm something of a libertarian myself, but this is really stupid. Taking advantage of the infrastructure, market, and support of one country only to flee to a tax haven abroad is neither moral nor respectable. If this happens, it's going to infuriate people and ultimately hurt the cause he's trying to promote. Headlines: "rich business people, calling themselves oppressed, flee to central Chile to avoid paying taxes.…

> Taking advantage of the infrastructure, market, and support of one country only to flee to a tax haven abroad is neither moral nor respectable. A thief comes into your home and takes half of your property. He's done the same with your neighbors, and down the street, he's handing out some of the goods to whomever stops by. Is it moral or respectable for you to go down the street, get something back, and then move ou…

And your parents were jailer because you couldn't do whatever you wanted right?

Like it or not, we are born into society and the social contract that goes along with it. The "utopia" of zero government already exists in the form of failed states.

The "theft" argument sounds a lot like the child who complains that "I didn't ask to be born!" when faced with family chores.

Re: Ayn Rand's Vision of Galt's Gulch Has Become Reality as of Today

#18

Post by ignostic »

troym wrote: post #11
RokStdy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That analogy is a fantastic failure. I was going to try to rebut it with some sort of home owner's association analogy, but why bother. The idea of the tax man as a thief in the night is just silly.

> The idea of the tax man as a thief in the night is just silly. Oh, really? Instead of argument by assertion, let's try an idea. Your neighbor comes and takes your bicycle without your permission and won't give it back. Theft? Sure. Your neighbor comes in with one of his friends, and they take your bike together, same circumstance. Theft? Sure. Your neighbor comes in with 2 of his friends, 3, 4, etc. At what point i…

I understand your point. Like you, I disagree with xemoka's assertion that "you agreed to live and earn in the society." It's not quite right (and a little naive) to say all government is voluntary because you happen to live in the countries boundaries. Anarcho-capitalism addresses this with the concept of actual opt-in governments, rather than asserting "you agree to this" whether you do or not.

With all of that said, he's still used/using the infrastructure of other countries to make money. Whether he agreed to build the roads with tax or not, the fact is that they are built and maintained with tax. One cannot pretend that government offers the rich NO benefit whatsoever.

Re: Ayn Rand's Vision of Galt's Gulch Has Become Reality as of Today

#19

Post by lake99 »

ignostic wrote: post #16
p3anoman wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its naive only becaue it is idealist. If you have read her non-fiction, The Romantic Manifesto might give you the reasoning behind it. Art is the realm of the ideal, not the real. (I often give the analogy of the cave painters wasting their time painting skinny meatless cattle (which may have been the reality) instead of fat cattle that would feed their tribe for months...). And we all know what ideals are don't we?

Rand built "exaggerated" characters, that's true. Unfortunately the style results in a bunch of cheesy straw men. The business leaders like Rearden are hard-working, smart, and good looking. The villains are stupid unattractive leeches, or at best weak and cowering pushovers. Nowhere in those books will you find an intelligent argument in favor or utilitarianism or moderate altruism. Rand was guilty of disingenuous r…

> ... leaders ... are ... good-looking, villains are ... unattractive

Neither true of Howard Roark nor of Keating. She described them several times in Fountainhead.

> Nowhere in those books will you find an intelligent argument in favor or utilitarianism or moderate altruism.

And why would you her expect to do that? Those were not her positions.

> Rand was guilty of disingenuous representation of opposing views.

Rand was guilty of inaccurate representations of all kinds of views, scholarship was not her forte. And you are guilty of disingenuous representation of Rand.

Post reply on HN