Intellectual Drivel

[Michael]

Here's a perfect example.

Apparently this piece of drivel was given a $10,000 prize for dressing up typical Randian pontifications with footnotes. Clearly the rightwing welfare system is alive and well. Ironic that the essay article purports to critique welfarism since the essay is a product of political welfare. No real academic would give a $10,000 prize to this kind of drivel.

Whether or not support for the welfare state stems from a psychological impairment in any particular individual, it is clear that dependency and envy are at the root of the system. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck has rigorously examined the role of envy in shaping western political ideas and has forcefully argued that envy is the primary motive force behind redistributionist policies that are the bedrock of the modern welfare state.[16] Philosopher Ayn Rand characterizes the current age as the “Age of Envy” saying that the dominant philosophical value in the culture is “hatred of the good for being the good.”[17] Again, whether these indictments apply to any specific individual or not, it is certainly clear that the widespread desire for political masters and government control is largely a response to feelings of dependency, inferiority, entitlement and envy, emotions which are indeed indicative of corruption and vice.

Essay (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2624)

Seriously, we were talking about critical thinking skills of students - I'm thinking some of the faculty is just as fuzzy on the concept of critical thinking as this paragraph shows rather well.

According to that quotation, envy is the driving force of liberalism (because Ayn Rand said so) and the motive for our modern welfare state. Really, that's what they say.

I guess it never occured to Rand (or her fellow travellers on the right) that those who voted in welfare are not one and the same with those who generally receive welfare. The average recipient of welfare is statistically the lowest probability voter. The voters who approved welfare polices were mostly taxpayers (simple statistical inference from voting behavior and tax structures).

But that kind of analysis doesn't support their thesis so they just ignore it and pretend that all these liberals voted in welfare (due to their envy of 'real working men') in order so they could directly benefit from it. :ummm:

This infantile level of partisan pontificating mascarading as actual rational analysis has become the calling card of rightwing intellectualism.

I come across a half-dozen of these pompus essay pieces a week - often flagged or forwarded to me by some rightwing friend with some praise expecting me to rejoice in the brilliance of the analysis which I search for in vain.

How can I intellectually respect my rightwing friends when they offer this kind of crap up for boundless praise - as proof that conservative intellectualism isn't dead at all, but is in fact blooming right now! (yes, that's what some of them say!)

Can we get a form of conservativism that isn't so emotionally pathetic and intellectually stunted as the kind on display in the 'award winning' essay linked above?

[Americano]

Here's a perfect example.

Apparently this piece of drivel was given a $10,000 prize for dressing up typical Randian pontifications with footnotes. Clearly the rightwing welfare system is alive and well. Ironic that the essay article purports to critique welfarism since the essay is a product of political welfare. No real academic would give a $10,000 prize to this kind of drivel.



Essay (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2624)

Seriously, we were talking about critical thinking skills of students - I'm thinking some of the faculty is just as fuzzy on the concept of critical thinking as this paragraph shows rather well.

According to that quotation, envy is the driving force of liberalism (because Ayn Rand said so) and the motive for our modern welfare state. Really, that's what they say.

I guess it never occured to Rand (or her fellow travellers on the right) that those who voted in welfare are not one and the same with those who generally receive welfare. The average recipient of welfare is statistically the lowest probability voter. The voters who approved welfare polices were mostly taxpayers (simple statistical inference from voting behavior and tax structures).

But that kind of analysis doesn't support their thesis so they just ignore it and pretend that all these liberals voted in welfare (due to their envy of 'real working men') in order so they could directly benefit from it. :ummm:

This infantile level of partisan pontificating mascarading as actual rational analysis has become the calling card of rightwing intellectualism.

I come across a half-dozen of these pompus essay pieces a week - often flagged or forwarded to me by some rightwing friend with some praise expecting me to rejoice in the brilliance of the analysis which I search for in vain.

How can I intellectually respect my rightwing friends when they offer this kind of crap up for boundless praise - as proof that conservative intellectualism isn't dead at all, but is in fact blooming right now! (yes, that's what some of them say!)

Can we get a form of conservativism that isn't so emotionally pathetic and intellectually stunted as the kind on display in the 'award winning' essay linked above?

I'd find it difficult to respect them. I've faced the same dilemma over the past decade. I've always been a registered republican and supported the GOP during my business career for self-serving purposes. The last republican I voted for was Bush Jr., once, a terrible mistake.

Died in the wool republicans have swung to fascism and social conservatism with a vengeance. I found myself in a position of having nothing in common with their direction, which for me has turned one personal friend into an acquaintance as anyone following that mentality takes it from ideology to lifestyle.

I consider professed libertarians naive republicans. The Rand worship reminding me of Scientology's initial popularity.

[Michael]

The Rand worship reminding me of Scientology's initial popularity.

Yes, there does seem to be quite a bit of similarity between Rand worship and Scientology types. :lol:

Both ideologies are held with fervent faith (and lots of cognitive dissonance).

[Americano]

Yes, there does seem to be quite a bit of similarity between Rand worship and Scientology types. :lol:

Both ideologies are held with fervent faith (and lots of cognitive dissonance).

Ancient belief systems solved that pesky dilemma by merely adding newly perceived gods to the master approved list.

[JHC]

OK. I'll be the Devil's advocate.
The entire capitalist system is driven by envy. Rand's theory was that ALL forms of economic infringement by the government promotes inequity, both individual welfare and business welfare, and that a truly free economic system is the only thing that works in a true democracy.
She said, in far more words than I, that self promotion was at the heart of all individuals. Each individual would use their greatest skills and attributes in order to gain whatever they consider wealth (family, money, vacation time, whatever).
I think she is right.

The government of the US is, after all, representative of different factions vying for self interest. When we look down from our own perch is when we consider the safety net of welfare. Had it not been for the disaster of the Great Depression, welfare would have never passed. Fear and envy are actually two sides of the same coin.

If this were not true our economic system would not be dependent on growth. We are chewing ourselves to ribbons as a nation quite happily because OUR needs are being met or at least, we are afraid to stop and fall off our current perch.
Pretty little ribbons.

[Michael]

OK. I'll be the Devil's advocate.
Are you intending to defend Ayn Rand or intellectual drivel? :rofl:

The entire capitalist system is driven by envy. Rand's theory was that ALL forms of economic infringement by the government promotes inequity, both individual welfare and business welfare, and that a truly free economic system is the only thing that works in a true democracy.
Where are you drawing this from? I'm not aware of Rand ever making any arguments predicated upon democracy as a conditional. I must request a Rand text source for that.

Indeed, most of Rand's arguments are rather 'anti-democratic' in character, though never blatant or explicitly so.

She said, in far more words than I, that self promotion was at the heart of all individuals. Each individual would use their greatest skills and attributes in order to gain whatever they consider wealth (family, money, vacation time, whatever).
I think she is right.
Yes, Rand certainly made that argument. :)

And I'll agree that the point is generally true (humans are in most cases driven by their own self-interest). I object on the grounds that A) it doesn't apply to all humans in all cases, and B) it is fact of life to be confronted, not a virtue to be celebrated and/or encouraged.

The government of the US is, after all, representative of different factions vying for self interest. When we look down from our own perch is when we consider the safety net of welfare. Had it not been for the disaster of the Great Depression, welfare would have never passed. Fear and envy are actually two sides of the same coin.
I'll accept your first statement since it is a rather famous argument asserted and defended by Alex de Tocqueville in his study entitled Democracy in America.

As for the rest of this paragraph, these are just assertions floating in the air without anything to support them other than your assertion of them. An most importantly, none of them offer any actual counter to the one argument I did make in the OP...

I guess it never occured to Rand (or her fellow travellers on the right) that those who voted in welfare are not one and the same with those who generally receive welfare. The average recipient of welfare is statistically the lowest probability voter. The voters who approved welfare polices were mostly taxpayers (simple statistical inference from voting behavior and tax structures).

If 'envy' is what drove 'liberals' to vote for welfare, how come these 'envy' driven voters didn't actually benefit directly from the original 1930's era programs they enacted? All the direct 'benefits' went to programs for [poor] unemployed males or [poor] dependent children.

These original 1930's US welfare programs generally did not pay money to the kind of people who did the voting in the US elections (by statistical inference: US voters skew heavily towards upper incomes and higher education levels, non-voters skew heavily towards youth, the unemployed, lower incomes and lower education levels generally).

The only programs that the general US voter directly benefits from are the old age welfare programs that apply to everyone (Social Security and Medicare), which definitely are 1960s era 'universal' programs - created AFTER Rand made her arguments.

If this were not true our economic system would not be dependent on growth. We are chewing ourselves to ribbons as a nation quite happily because OUR needs are being met or at least, we are afraid to stop and fall off our current perch.
Pretty little ribbons.
I respectfully submit that the beginning of that economic 'circular treadmill' that you refer to has lot more to do with the advent of the Federal Reserve in 1910/1913.

I might also add it is capitalism itself that drives the need for growth. "OUR needs" and defense of "our current perch" are merely the vehicle used to for political justification of the game. "OUR needs" (and perches) are artifically created and pandered to, because of capitalism's need to make endlessly growing profits.

Indeed, I don't see 'envy' anywhere at all except coming from the Rand-worshipping capitalist wannabes themselves. Applying 'envy' to everyone as their sole (or soul) driving motive appears to be a case of 'projection'.

As such, I must conclude that this 'Randian' argument about the advent of welfare just doesn't hold up under rational scrutiny.

As an aside, I might point out that the advent of welfare has a whole lot more to do with 'fear' than envy. I have long argued that 'welfare' is a 'service' that the economically prosperous pay to prevent a communist-style revolution, innsurrection and/or general riots in the streets. It is a 'bribe' that the 'haves' pay to the 'havenots' to keep the peace. That's it, that's all.

[Margot]

And I'll agree that the point is generally true (humans are in most cases driven by their own self-interest). I object on the grounds that A) it doesn't apply to all humans in all cases, and B) it is fact of life to be confronted, not a virtue to be celebrated and/or encouraged.



How very anti-postmodern of you. Which is actually just another way of saying "how very postmodern of you!"

[JHC]

Are you intending to defend Ayn Rand or intellectual drivel? :rofl: I don't defend all intellectual drivel, only that which I think has rather less drivel than merit. Rand was drivelous. (Yes, I made that up). But as is usual, not all fools are foolish all the time. I don't want to miss anything.


Where are you drawing this from? I'm not aware of Rand ever making any arguments predicated upon democracy as a conditional. I must request a Rand text source for that.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1RxKW-P5V8&feature=related

Indeed, most of Rand's arguments are rather 'anti-democratic' in character, though never blatant or explicitly so. That's just your assertions floating in the air with nothing to support them but your assertions. Since you haven't specifically cited Socrates on this subject. ;-)
But seriously, don't you think Rand probably got a rather harsh treatment considering the era she chose to birth her philosophy and the nation/culture she chose to reveal it?

Yes, Rand certainly made that argument. :)

And I'll agree that the point is generally true (humans are in most cases driven by their own self-interest). I object on the grounds that A) it doesn't apply to all humans in all cases, and B) it is fact of life to be confronted, not a virtue to be celebrated and/or encouraged. I gave no evidence to back up this assertion. I am surprised that you agree without adding any supporting evidence.

I'll accept your first statement since it is a rather famous argument asserted and defended by Alex de Tocqueville in his study entitled Democracy in America.Did anyone ever disagree with de Tocqueville? Just wondering what makes his assertions better than yours and mine.

As for the rest of this paragraph, these are just assertions floating in the air without anything to support them other than your assertion of them. An most importantly, none of them offer any actual counter to the one argument I did make in the OP... That it is drivel? Indeed, I disagree with you because I believe the woman did a very good job of stating her case. She begins immediately with a quote from Benjamin Franklin that immediately hit the mark with me and many others like me who say the same thing when the government tries to legislate social issues (you know, like marriage for instance).

If 'envy' is what drove 'liberals' to vote for welfare, how come these 'envy' driven voters didn't actually benefit directly from the original 1930's era programs they enacted? All the direct 'benefits' went to programs for [poor] unemployed males or [poor] dependent children.

These original 1930's US welfare programs generally did not pay money to the kind of people who did the voting in the US elections (by statistical inference: US voters skew heavily towards upper incomes and higher education levels, non-voters skew heavily towards youth, the unemployed, lower incomes and lower education levels generally). The Great Depression wasn't an economic situation in which the people who were poor simply got poorer. It was a time when the entire economy slipped. The middle class fell into poverty and the wealthy fell that far too sometimes. Anyone left on a perch watched it all unfold. There were not many that were not affected by the Great Depression. They weren't just a bunch of uneducated bums.

Secondly, and far more importantly, envy is not synonymous with immediate gratification. Just like self interest doesn't make one a sociopath.

The only programs that the general US voter directly benefits from are the old age welfare programs that apply to everyone (Social Security and Medicare), which definitely are 1960s era 'universal' programs - created AFTER Rand made her arguments. Of course. Rand was writing about communism/socialism/Russia/USSR, not the US. Ben O'Neill is the one applying Rand's philosophy to the current situation in the US. As you can see by watching the video at the link, Rand drew the same analogy herself in the 1970's.

I respectfully submit that the beginning of that economic 'circular treadmill' that you refer to has lot more to do with the advent of the Federal Reserve in 1910/1913. I concede the point respectfully.

I might also add it is capitalism itself that drives the need for growth. "OUR needs" and defense of "our current perch" are merely the vehicle used to for political justification of the game. "OUR needs" (and perches) are artifically created and pandered to, because of capitalism's need to make endlessly growing profits. Are you saying that we are not easily satiated? Why not? It's not envy?

Indeed, I don't see 'envy' anywhere at all except coming from the Rand-worshipping capitalist wannabes themselves. Applying 'envy' to everyone as their sole (or soul) driving motive appears to be a case of 'projection'. Hmmm. Interesting. I can't tell you how many times I've been in arguments about economics when my opponent says "there aren't any poor people in America! You don't see children with distended bellies dying in the streets! They have television and refrigerators and cell phones and they're still on welfare!" Indeed, compared to the famous distended bellies of Africa and India, the US doesn't have poor people. So why are they on welfare if they can afford a television?
I think that saying envy drives our economy should not be taken as a negative in and of itself. If, for instance, I were not envious of the healthcare that wealthy people get while I go without my prescriptions, I wouldn't fight to get it. I am VERY envious. I don't think it's fair.
What Rand preached, was that if the government stayed out of issues of "fair", the free market would level things out.

As such, I must conclude that this 'Randian' argument about the advent of welfare just doesn't hold up under rational scrutiny.

As an aside, I might point out that the advent of welfare has a whole lot more to do with 'fear' than envy. I have long argued that 'welfare' is a 'service' that the economically prosperous pay to prevent a communist-style revolution, innsurrection and/or general riots in the streets. It is a 'bribe' that the 'haves' pay to the 'havenots' to keep the peace. That's it, that's all.
I don't know if the Randian argument regarding welfare state is valid or not. We didn't try it very long and I can see flaws (monopolies for one). I will say that some welfare states work very, very well.

I don't dismiss the Randian arguments because what she said about the government attempting to direct social growth hits home with me. Depending on who is in office, one might be satisfied or livid but in no circumstance can they alter their own course unless they leave the country. For instance: I don't mind paying for public education but now that we are, I'm livid about sex ed. and religion creeping in and spending my time and money parenting in place of parents for 8 hours daily. I have very little control over what is taught to children in a public school and when some ignorant Bible thumping dick-wad starts proselytizing, I'm pretty mad about paying for education. Ya know?

[JHC]

Nope. Can't do it. Even if Rand's sentiment is right, as I've said before, we are not evolved enough to be trusted with that kind of philosophy in our economy. Listening to the news on the Goldman Sachs fake trial, Greece about to bring down the EU, the Feds dedicated to lower maintaining the false interest rates - it all points to disaster and that disaster comes from not enough regulation.
This devil really is one and I'll let 'im drown on his own.

[Michael]

Nope. Can't do it. Even if Rand's sentiment is right, as I've said before, we are not evolved enough to be trusted with that kind of philosophy in our economy.
I really am not ready to accept that envy/selfishness/ego really drives everything for humans.

I certainly admit that this is a very common human motivation, with an abundance of evidence to support it, but my objection would be one of degree. Envy/selfishness/ego or whatever just isn't sufficient to explain the existence of human society and culture.

It is my understanding that human beings are fundamentally a 'collective' or 'social' species, that has been long accustomed to living in close social groups going back to our ape-ish ancestry. That is to say, at the core of our being as a species, humans truly are social animals. However, I'd also assert that one of the most brilliant and successful adaptations of humans has been to cultivate 'individualism' as a method or tool that is generally benefical to the larger social group.

That is to say, the cultivation of individualism is part of our social culture - we encourage it because it brings us things like dinner on the table and the industrial revolution and advanced science and medicine.

Listening to the news on the Goldman Sachs fake trial, Greece about to bring down the EU, the Feds dedicated to lower maintaining the false interest rates - it all points to disaster and that disaster comes from not enough regulation.
This devil really is one and I'll let 'im drown on his own.

Yes, I'm inclined to agree here. The whole financial crisis has always been about the complete lack of any meaningful regulatory oversight in the US financial markets. Everyone just assumed that there was some - but the chief regulator (Greenspan) turned out to be the 'chief cheer-leader' for one of the teams.

Canada was completely outside the loop on that whole financial market crash and the real estate bubble thing specifically because it has a pretty decent and well established 'conservative' bank regulation regime. (conservative meaning strict, stubborn and traditional). Good banking regulations really do matter.