how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to Mr Matt
Re: more said by Mr Matt:  I guess Ayn would want all roads to be privately owned toll roads and all water/sewer systems to be privately owned so that consumers can be bled dry. Um, I freely (and proudly) admit that when it comes to Ayn Rand, I don't know a damn thing.
What I do know is that Time Warner is full of crap. They (and others) had ample opportunity to provide the service these people wanted and prevent someone else from moving in on their territory. They did nothing, leaving consumers to languish until they decided to do it for themselves. Now a competing network is in place delivering a product they have no hope of beating on quality or price. Now they are trying a different tactic: legislation.
But I have a special hatred reserved for this bill's sponsor, Rep. Ty Harrell. This man was elected to serve the people of his district. As a representative he is an absolute failure. The only way you don't understand legislation you are sponsoring is if you didn't write it, didn't research it or are only supporting it as a favor to an interested party. I'm not suggesting one has to be an expert on every subject that comes across your desk. Given the volume and breadth of issues you would encounter in that position, a lack of expertise in a given subject is understandable. But how do you argue in support of a bill when you can't even explain why it deserves an affirmative vote? Freely admitting you don't understand a bill you are standing up for is a breach of trust between you and your constituency. You betray your vow to serve the public good when you can't explain why a law would be in the public's best interest.
What ever happened to competence? What happened to accountability? What ever happened to research? Is it so hard to spend a little time researching a subject before deciding to vote yea or nea? There are a number of ways for someone in his position to educate himself on an issue, and if those methods fail there's always Google. Rep. Harrell has shown that his office is available to anyone who can make the appropriate donation to his re-election campaign. In that regard he is no better than ex-Illinois Gov.Rod Blagojevich and he should share a similar fate.
I'd love for some reporter to take this story and run with it, maybe look into the financials. I'd like to see Rep. Harrell's and others bad habits brought to the light of day for all to see. | |
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| said by vzw emp :said by Mr Matt: I guess Ayn would want all roads to be privately owned toll roads and all water/sewer systems to be privately owned so that consumers can be bled dry. Um, I freely (and proudly) admit that when it comes to Ayn Rand, I don't know a damn thing. Ayn Rand extolled a belief system called "Objectivism," which hard-core Right Wingers claim to be the basis of Conservativism. And, Libertarians (founded in the early '70s by largely disaffected hard-core Right Wingers) claim as the basis of their political party.
The basic principle of Ayn Rand's belief is the "non-coercion" principle. In all matters there should be consent among individuals. That a group (society) can't validate the use of coercive force just because a majority take a vote to approve it.
Therefore, the OP's premise is that unless 100% of current (and future) residents consent to a government-run infrastructure or service (like police, fire, trash, sewer, water, library, fairgrounds, etc.) then it is "coercion."
Taking their belief system to its logical conclusion, there would be no "social contract." Every individual, on every day would be allowed to opt-out of things like national defense, air quality, animal welfare, food- and drug-quality regulation.
The real kicker is that they equate these macro issues to three thugs taking a "vote" to relieve you of your wallet in a dark alley. I.e., "forcing" people to pay for clean drinking water (when they might settle for dirtier water on a "free market" where they could "choose") has the same moral objection as a thug shoving a .38 into your ribs and taking your wallet.
This is why the Libertarian Party garners the same fractions of support today that it did 25 years ago. And, why we continue to see hard-core Right Wingers use absolutist rhetoric to criticize moderate Republicans, as the hard-core continues to slide into irrelevancy.
It sounds good. Everyone gets goose bumply when a complex world can be reduced to such simplistic terms. But, groups of people aren't simple. The issues that arise from group dynamics aren't simplistic.
And, that's why Rand opposed the creation of the Libertarian Party in the early '70s. She knew that her views were entertainment. Like Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. She didn't want to see her views put in a position where they had to be given practical effect.
She wanted them to remain as a fringe element of Republican party. Beating moderate Republicans with high-sounding, principle-based rhetoric. Where nobody would dream of holding the fringe group to the literal meaning of their own rhetoric.
Mark | | |
|
|
