Daily Topics - Monday March 12th, 2012

Daily Topics - Monday March 12th, 2012

Catch The Thom Hartmann Program LIVE at our new time, 3-6pm Eastern!

Hour One: How Ayn Rand Became the New Right's Version of Marx - George Monbiot, The Guardian / Plus, Occupy the (foreclosure) "scene of the crime" - Tim Nonn, Occupy Petaluma

Hour Two: Keystone XL pipeline vs. eminent domainalive - William Yeatman, Competitive Enterprise Institute / Plus, Keystone battle continues - Bill McKibben, 350.org

Hour Three: Right: no more social safety nets - Peter Suderman, Reason Magazine

Comments

Oldcrone
Oldcrone's picture
Thom, why do you get angry

Thom, why do you get angry and hang up on callers who ask you why the Democrat Party has not reversed Reagan's lowering of corporate taxes?  Dems have had more control over congress than the right has. But they do nothing to reverse it.

Two sides of the same coin Thom, you are attempting to stop the wind. It won't work, the Dems are just as rotten as the right is.

One more thing, you crow your approval of the POTUS who assassinates his own people with not a shred of due process, why is that? 

Is that progressive thinking?  Remember how you talked MLK and assassination with the same mouth? You cannot have it both ways Thom, and it's painful to watch you twisting to keep from putting the blame on the Democrat leaders. You cannot do so forever.

WendyBluEyez
WendyBluEyez's picture
RE: William Yeatman If this

RE: William Yeatman

If this dumba$$ laughs ONE MORE TIME, hang up on him!!!!

This is not funny!

fbacher
fbacher's picture
The audio version of Atlas

The audio version of Atlas Shrugged may be more palatable than the book version.

To me, Rand makes serious errors in logic whenever she presents her philosophy. In presenting her Objectivist Epistemology she laboriously discusses "A=A"  and appears to make a good case. Like a mathematician she meticulously discusses her Axioms and then builds upon them using proofs. Unlike a mathematician she seems to get tired after proving -1 * -1 = 1 and then jumps to string theory with no further explanation. She makes huge leaps in logic based on "A=A". It is like someone proving almost whatever they want based on a clverly disguised division by zero or like a magician who defies physics by the slight of hand or an engineer who extrapolates to conclusions far beyond the precision of their measurements or calculations. In short, her science is pseudoscience.

 

In Shrugged, Gault begins as an engineer at a factory where he invents the perpetual motion machine which produces massive energy from nothing. The evil owners don't want to properly recognize him and so he destroys the engine. The story does not address any contractual relationship between the owners and Gault, but normally when you work for a company you forfeit all of your inventions to that company as part of your salary. By him destroying the invention he is violating his contract. Of course throughout the book Gault, Rearden and others are all super-heroes who pull inventions out of every orifice without any help from anything. Rearden invents rearden-metal, which installed as railroad tracks and used on a high speed line without any testing, as if a gift from the Gods.

 

I have only seen the movie version of Fountainhead (with Gary Cooper) In it Roark destroys an entire complex of buildings which he is the secret architect of because the developers have the audacity to modify. Rand makes the case that Roark, the inventor, is the true owner of the work. He is acquitted of all wrong doing in court. As in Shrugged, Rand completely ignores long established criminal and civil law as well as normal contractual conditions. Roark has no contractual claim since none was never signed, nor was any consideration paid.

 

Her supporters insist that the books are not meant to be taken literally, that you have to look for deeper meaning. To me, if you are presenting an "Objective" philosophy, you shouldn't have to make your case based on such flawed arguments. When you have to read so much into the story which is not there you can come up with almost any interpretation that you want. Like Limbaugh, who dodges any valid criticism by saying that "he was only kidding" or that his show is entertainment not news, he can revise the meaning of his words depending upon the audience or the time of day.