|
 |
| Comments Posted on Friday, July 3, 2009 |
|
 | Objectivist Roundup
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 19:09:19 mst
Name: BrianS
One of the articles in this roundup is: "Sunk with the Tea" http://borntoidentify.blogspot.com/2009/06/sunk-with-tea.html
The author states: "The decision of some Objectivists to support, and to participate in, the "Tea Party Movement" has come to exactly the end that Ayn Rand predicted for such efforts." He indicates those Objectivists who "advocate collaboration with the "Tea Party" movement" simply "help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies." And he concludes "If only Ayn Rand were alive today to say, "I told you so.""
Some of the comments are worth reading as well
(acknowledgement: I have posted a couple comments there under the nic RadCap)
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Objectivist Roundup
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 18:48:15 mst
Name: '温'湿
E-mail: wx16759(at)163.com
URL: http://www.ksjhjd.com
Good article
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Today's X-Ray
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 18:43:45 mst
Name: Jack F
How does this guy explain this to the doctor?
"Ah. doc...kind of....ah....shoved my tooth brush up my ass TO FAR and it got stuck".
I can't imagine that conversation. How did the Dr. hold a straight face.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Tom Stevens' Blog Post Reveals Him to be First-Rate Louse
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 18:01:29 mst
Name: Dave B
E-mail: Blankenstein0582(at)aol.com
So the quotes from 'Ayn Rand Answers' do not necessarily reflect the views of Dr. Stevens or the Objectivist party? I guess they just pick and choose bits of Objectivism whenever it suits them. Double sheesh!!
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Tom Stevens' Blog Post Reveals Him to be First-Rate Louse
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 16:39:59 mst
Name: anon
Judging solely from the transcript of Ms. Fawcett's words posted on Ms. Stevens' blog, it is in no way certain that it was Ms. Rand's feeling that because two women shared a birth day it had any significance. Contrary to Mr. Steven's plausible, but unreasonable, interpretation of it, it could have just as likely been Ms. Fawcett's own rationalization for why Ms. Rand liked her so much and contacted her. Ms. Rand may have mentioned it to her just because, upon discovering it, she found it endearing (and if they had become friends, had some future utility), but that in no way proves that she was the one attaching any deeper meaning to it. The fact that Ms. Fawcett spent her life outside of intellectual pursuits whereas Ms. Rand reveled in them, this, if anything, is the more likely explanation - making Mr. Stevens' conclusion completely unfair.
There really is nothing else to say.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Tom Stevens' Blog Post Reveals Him to be First-Rate Louse
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 14:15:46 mst
Name: Fortitudine
E-mail: canadian.republic(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://www.thecanadianrepublic.blogspot.com
I see Diana's "sheesh" and Mike's "jeez" and offer the following portmanteau in response to this Stevens fellow's absurdity: "jeesh."
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Tom Stevens' Blog Post Reveals Him to be First-Rate Louse
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 11:03:41 mst
Name: Mike
E-mail: atlas51184(at)comcast.net
I'll see your 'sheesh' and raise you a 'jeez.' How about his 4,800 word "quote" from Ayn Rand's Answers? http://drtomstevens.blogspot.com/2009/06/quotations-from-ayn-rand-a ...
And just for laughs, here's part of the NJ party's plan to save the state: "Cross out "God" on U.S. paper money and write "Galt" so it reads "In Galt We Trust""
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Tom Stevens' Blog Post Reveals Him to be First-Rate Louse
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 9:43:10 mst
Name: Jennifer Snow
E-mail: Snowconic(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://literatrix.blogspot.com
I wholeheartedly second Diana's "Sheesh!"
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Tom Stevens' Blog Post Reveals Him to be First-Rate Louse
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 8:38:44 mst
Name: Dave B
E-mail: Blankenstein0582(at)aol.com
Oops, sorry, didn't mean to post the same thing twice!
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Tom Stevens' Blog Post Reveals Him to be First-Rate Louse
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 8:29:46 mst
Name: Dave B
E-mail: Blankenstein0582(at)aol.com
I posted a reply on Dr.Steven' blog under the name '3rdparty'. If any of you would like to critique my response, please feel free to do so. Be gentle, I'm a newbie at this!! :-D
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Tom Stevens' Blog Post Reveals Him to be First-Rate Louse
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 8:28:49 mst
Name: Dave B
E-mail: Blankenstein0582(at)aol.com
I posted a reply on Dr.Steven' blog under the name '3rdparty'. If any of you would like to critique my response, please feel free to do so. Be gentle, I'm a newbie at this!! :-D
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Tom Stevens' Blog Post Reveals Him to be First-Rate Louse
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 8:14:35 mst
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Here's more delighted from The Louse:
http://drtomstevens.blogspot.com/2009/07/objectivist-party-of-new-y ...
***
On July 1, 2009, Dr. Tom Stevens, President of the Objectivist Party of New York, announced the start of a "Have You Read Atlas Shrugged?" sign campaign.
The goal of the campaign is to have individual members of the Objectivist Party of New York purchase or make signs that say "Have You Read Atlas Shrugged?" and to strategically place those signs so they can be seen by the most people possible.
The first such sign in New York State was placed on a fence on a road crossing the Long Island Expressway in Nassau County, New York so it could be seen by all traffic heading westbound.
Dr. Stevens suggested that individuals making those signs do not place the party's name, website or phone number on it. He recommends that only the words "Have You Read Atlas Shrugged?" be placed on the signs to avoid possible legal liability for having placed them.
***
I couldn't stomach reading any more after that -- what a scumbag!
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Tom Stevens' Blog Post Reveals Him to be First-Rate Louse
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 7:40:57 mst
Name: Michael Gold
E-mail: micaelgold(at)aol.com
URL: http://www.mgtutoring.com/blog/
Yeah. I saw that. How can anyone with a modicum of understanding of Objectivism -- or common sense -- believe and state publicly such a thing? Stevens' claims are so off-the-wall and irrational, I have to wonder if the guy is engaging in a deliberate attack on Objectivism and Ayn Rand.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 7:01:10 mst
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brian,
I see in retrospect that I didn't mark "this is a shift to a related topic" sufficiently clearly. I'll endeavor to be more explicit if I make such a topic shift in future.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Today's X-Ray
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 5:40:21 mst
Name: KPO'M
E-mail: ka84796(at)comcast.net
Sajid,
A woman would have wider hips.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Today's X-Ray
Friday, July 3, 2009 at 4:12:44 mst
Name: Doug H.
E-mail: radiotheatre(at)gmail.com
Wouldn't nature would have taken its course without a paniced trip to the ER?
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
| Comments Posted on Thursday, July 2, 2009 |
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 22:46:40 mst
Name: BrianS
William
Ah. You didn't make it clear you were trying to talk about something *outside* the context of the discussion of regulations. So I took your comments to be a part of that discussion. I see now that they weren't - which clears things up mightily. :)
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 21:22:41 mst
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brian, Yes, that's right: "Ok - so it is NOT private property. . . . That being the case, as I indicated, it is thus not pertinent to the point I was making about the concept 'regulation'." The only confusion was proscribe/prescribe.
I was responding, instead, to your parenthetical comment that "in a proper system of government roads indeed would not properly be 'public' property." I know that you made that point in passing, but I thought it worth a comment in its own right. But I think I've explained my view of it, so unless you want to address it further, I'll let it drop.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Today's X-Ray
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 20:13:46 mst
Name: C Andrew
E-mail: ca4papen(at)mindspring.com
Of course, the alternative explanation would be that the electric toothbrush was his version of the starship Enterprise...
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Today's X-Ray
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 20:12:15 mst
Name: C Andrew
E-mail: ca4papen(at)mindspring.com
And of course, the Seinfeld episode...
"It was a million to one shot Doc! A million to one!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fusilli_Jerry
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 19:49:19 mst
Name: BrianS
"Can you give an example of some case where the government does what you are talking about? "
Sorry, forgot about this one:
Zoning laws
FDA regulations
EPA regulations
OSHA
etc
I think you get the point.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 19:46:58 mst
Name: BrianS
"Do you literally mean "proscribes"?"
Oops, my bad: 'prescribes' is indeed what I meant to write.
"By the legal concept I'm referring to, it's precisely not true that that road has a property owner."
Ok - so it is NOT private property. That's all I was trying to confirm. That being the case, as I indicated, it is thus not pertinent to the point I was making about the concept 'regulation'.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 17:49:05 mst
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brian,
I think I understand the wording, but I'm not sure. Do you literally mean "proscribes"? That is, the government is granting the property owner permission to use his own property in ways that the government forbids? That sounds contradictory on the face of it. Unless this is exceptio probat regulam in casis non exceptis (the exception establishes the rule in the cases that are not excepted). I'd find it more understandable if the word were "prescribes," but I hesitate to assume that you mixed up those two words.
In any case, let's apply this to the common road over which people travel. By the legal concept I'm referring to, it's precisely not true that that road has a property owner. It's not private property; it's not even government property, not in the sense in which a police car is government property. And no permission is being granted; people who travel on the road do so as a right, as part of their right of liberty, and not by permission. So I think this is not the same case as what you're talking about.
Can you give an example of some case where the government does what you are talking about?
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 15:45:43 mst
Name: BrianS
William
"private property over which the government grants [the property owner] 'permission' to use [his own property] in ways [the government] proscribes"
Does that help or is the statement still unclear?
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Today's X-Ray
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 15:11:37 mst
Name: Sajid
This may be a silly question but how can we be sure its a guy and not a girl?
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 14:44:18 mst
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brian,
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble parsing "*private* property over which the government grants its owner 'permission' to use in ways IT proscribes." I just can't figure out the concept it's intended to convey. In particular, can you clarify what each occurrence of "it" refers to?
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Today's X-Ray
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 14:44:02 mst
Name: Don Kenner
E-mail: dbkenner(at)gmail.com
Far be from me to criticize alternative lifestyles, but...yeesh!
His roommate: "Hey, has anyone seen my electric toothbrush?"
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 13:17:58 mst
Name: BrianS
"If we are talking about residential access roads, then I think the question of their being public property is a bit more complex."
I disagree with many of the premises you present. However, those premises are not pertinent to the point I was making, unless you are claiming what you identify as "common" property is actually *private* property over which the government grants its owner 'permission' to use in ways IT proscribes.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Today's X-Ray
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 13:06:11 mst
Name: Mike
E-mail: mikedialj(at)netscape.net
Thilly Thavage!!!
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Today's X-Ray
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 12:13:35 mst
Name: Cheerwino
Even cleans those hard to reach back teeth!
Hope it wasn't one of those Tooth Tunes brushes.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 11:32:02 mst
Name: Rowboat
"After your knee-jerk response, whichever it is, take a second to really think it over ..."
Yep, that'll invite a lot of response ...
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Good News on Free Speech
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 10:44:35 mst
Name: Not Joe Biden
E-mail: notjoebiden(at)aol.com
Jennifer, I think you're doing a good job outlining the necessity of acting on principle. I think there may be problems with some parts of your approach, not so much with overreaction but rather with a less-than-full appreciation for what professional legal work consists of. That's not any kind of character flaw, even if this observation of mine is completely correct.
I say this not to add to the pile of criticism, but rather to try to shrink it. I'm hoping this gesture is not entirely futile. I'm guessing if you and the IJ principals had a chance to speak at length, you'd find yourselves with much closer outlooks on life than it would appear.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 10:15:26 mst
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Brian,
If we are talking about residential access roads, then I think the question of their being public property is a bit more complex. There are several different cases.
(1) An unimproved road can come into being by residents simply choosing to follow a certain route. If the general population of an area follow such a route, then being able to do so is part of their freedom of movement. If someone then builds on the road, blocking their movement, he has taken away some of the liberty that they formerly possessed. This is not the same as occupying an area of open wilderness than anyone might happen to move through; the road was regularly used by all those people.
The ancient Romans distinguished between private property, which the owner could permanently occupy and use and no one else could use, and common property, which anyone was free to use but no one was free to permanently occupy. A proper government is capable of defining and enforcing rules of common property. Consider, for a different example, riparian rights, under which the people along a stream have rights to withdraw some of its water for private use, but not to dam or divert the entire stream, and there are objective laws regulating water use.
(2) Improvements to a road raise more complex issues. Such improvements need to be paid for, and if they are paid for, they presumably belong to someone.
The usual American approach is to have the government make the improvements and pay for them with its revenues . . . in our present system, with tax money. But that puts the government in the role of an economic actor, rather than of providing a legal framework for economic actors; and this is both not something government is best suited to do, and a potential source of conflicts.
On the other hand, if a private firm simply takes possession of the road, improves it, and charges fees for its use, you have the prospect of a resident who formerly moved freely on the road being denied the ability to do so without paying. That's a loss of former liberty of movement. There is also the prospect of a resident being denied the use of a road entirely; I don't see this as a common or likely thing, but, for example, a road owner wanting to acquire land to build an extension of a road might deny the landowner's access to pressure him into selling, amount to a kind of "eminent domain." Letting a commonly used road by acquired as private property by an entrepreneur thus is a material loss to the established users.
It would be possible to treat a developed road as private property, but grant all the users easements permitting its use. I specify "easements" because these are not contracts, which can be revoked by either party; they are property rights . . . if I own a lot on a street, and you own a lot behind mine and cross over mine to reach the street, then over time you will acquire a legal right to use my property for that specific purpose, which will be attached to the bundle of other rights that go with your property. But it's hard to see how a road's owner could make any money if all the residents had easements!
Another approach might be to do what the German government did long ago with river rights in the Ruhr Valley: Set up a corporation for each road or network of roads, with all the occupants of property accessed by those roads being granted shares. The corporation would have the right to assess its shareholders for expenses of maintaining and improving the roads; in return, it would grant them the right to use the road, and the right to vote on policy for the road. Of course, in a sense, this is what government owned roads are, but separating the function of managing the road from the function of government properly understood would avoid certain problems.
(3) In a new housing development, the roads would be built at the same time as the houses, and could be included in a kind of condominium arrangement. Alternatively, the roads could be privately owned by a business firm. But to get anyone to move in, it would be necessary to ensure access; so purchase of a lot would need to include purchase of an option to use the roads, possibly at a fixed fee not to be raised without the consent of the property owners . . . which isn't all that different from having a condomium agreement.
(4) For long distance roads connecting city centers, such as toll roads and freeways, the same issues don't arise. There's no obvious reason that these couldn't be private property pure and simple, just like railroads or canals.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Today's X-Ray
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 8:29:10 mst
Name: Dave B
E-mail: Blankenstein0582(at)aol.com
"For his sake I hope the batteries weren't duracell, they keep going and going and going..."
I think that was the whole point, that he hoped it WOULD keep going and going... Ugh, I don't think I'll ever understand this kind of inanity (stupidity?)!!
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Today's X-Ray
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 8:11:01 mst
Name: Arthor Bearing
E-mail: arthorbearing(at)gmail.com
URL: http://arthorbearing.com
My curiosity begs the question: where did the toothbrush come from? Did he go out and buy it beforehand, planning his motor-powered autospelunking in advance? Or did he just grab his toothbrush and go for it? And if the latter, what did he use to brush his teeth that night? Perhaps he just gave the same brush a thorough rinse ;)
For his sake I hope the batteries weren't duracell, they keep going and going and going...
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Today's X-Ray
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 6:42:13 mst
Name: Paul
E-mail: prt2000(at)gmx.net
I never understand this. Why can't people just buy a dildo...one designed for that area. With a safety knob.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Today's X-Ray
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 5:11:02 mst
Name: Stephen Macklin
E-mail: smacklin(at)optonline.net
I guess some people take the concept of colon cleansing too seriously.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Today's X-Ray
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 4:46:16 mst
Name: Nicholas Provenzo
E-mail: nprovenzo_at_capitalismcenter.org
URL: http://www/capitalismcenter.org
Ha! I guess this guy was really worried about the cavity creeps--you know, the cavity creeps up his . . .
And you have to marvel about that sublime moment of realization when the guy realized that that thing ain't coming out on its own . . .
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
| Comments Posted on Wednesday, July 1, 2009 |
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 22:56:53 mst
Name: BrianS
"Now you might argue that roads should be privately owned, etc., but that's really a separate issue"
Actually, it is not a separate issue at all, for your example is *not* one of regulation. It is one of property rights - specifically the delegated right of property to the government.
Even in a proper system of government, there will be some property which is 'public' - be it things like the White House, or jet fighters, or police cars. And the government will necessarily proscribe how that property is used - within the limits of the authority granted to it by the citizens. (Visiting hours to the WH for example - or restrictions on who may fly or drive the aforementioned vehicles, etc).
In that respect, what you described is simply a proper exercise of property rights (though in a proper system of government roads indeed would not properly be 'public' property). They are not regulation, any more than the sign "Shoes and Shirt required" in a private restaurant is a regulation.
Regulation is a violation of rights. Not just of property rights, but of ALL rights. Regulation is the government dictating what an individual may or may not do with his OWN person or property. By means of regulation, government treats both people and their property as ITS own property - property an individual does not use by RIGHT but only by the PERMISSION of that government.
Put simply, regulation is the instrument of fascism - where the individual holds title to his life and property, but where control of both is vested in the State.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 16:34:48 mst
Name: Mike Hardy
E-mail: (my last name) (at) math.umn.edu
Diana, did I understand correctly a couple of months or so ago as expressing an aversion to delegation of legislative power?
My understanding is that the term "regulation" in this country is often taken to mean enactments of administrative agencies to which a legislature (either Congress or a state legislature) has granted regulatory power.
A couple questions come to mind:
Suppose the constitution of a state says that the legislative power shall be vested in the state legislature. The legislature then passes a law saying local councils, elected by a vote of the people of a municipality or a county, shall have power to pass ordinances on specified topics, which will have the force of law within the municipality or county. That's delegation, but it differs from what are typically called administrative agencies, in that the member of local councils are democratically elected by the citizenry. How does that fit into an aversion to delegation?
(I'm not 100% sure, but that is my understanding of the power of local councils in (most of?) the USA to legislate. I'd be surprised if details don't vary from state to state.)
Now suppose the state legislature passes a law saying the state Department of Transporation may decide speed limits, locations of stop signs, locations of "NO LEFT TURN" signs, and maybe power to decide which other sorts of routine regulatory signs will exist (so that Department might later invent a "No Parking Cars In Bicycle Paths Between 3:00 and 7:00 PM" sign, to be posted at such locations as it may decide; or a "Bicycles Only" sign or a "Car Pools Only" sign, etc.). (Now you might argue that roads should be privately owned, etc., but that's really a separate issue; suppose the law is intended to remain in effect as long as there are public roads, which may or may not get abolished in the next session of the legislature....) Things like that seems like prudent efficiency, not like threats to establish tyranny. What would be your thoughts on that?
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 15:04:10 mst
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Bryan,
I think we're basically in agreement. I mainly wanted to make sure that you weren't defining "getting better" overly narrowly. But it doesn't sound as if you are.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 14:28:49 mst
Name: Mel McGuire
Newsweek, July 1 2009
"The Bolivarian Brain Drain
Hugo Chavez and his allies are tightening their grips, forcing the intelligentsia to leave in droves."
I knew people were leaving but I had no idea that the exodus was this extensive.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/204835/page/1
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Good News on Free Speech
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 13:06:31 mst
Name: Jennifer Snow
E-mail: Snowconic(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://literatrix.blogspot.com
So the fact that someone's doing a good job means that no one should say that there may be some problems with some specifics of their approach?
If they're happy in their own minds that they're aware of this potential problem and they already have it covered, good for them. If they think I'm overreacting, they should ignore me. Sheesh.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 12:15:06 mst
Name: Bryan
William
Thank you for your comments. I interpret your post as just a different perspective on the same choice. My apologies if anything you read about staying in a particular discipline as a lack of ambition. It's not.
I started out my career as a Microbiologist, and was very good at what I did. But I remember one day I was staring at a set of samples and wondered how many times I had performed this exact same test in the last year. Did I want to keep doing that? That was when I decided to do something else. If I had stayed, I could have advanced in other areas within the lab, and became an expert and published papers or identified new rapid methods. That would have been a perfectly valid choice. Now, if my company had chosen to outsource the micro testing, my skill set would not have protected me from a layoff, no matter how knowledgable I was. That is the risk of specialization.
I chose to step over the line and become a Manager. Once I did, my original skill set was no longer helpful. I had to develop a new set of skills. I still work in the technical world, but now I need to be able to covey things to people beyond the lab. The people management piece is challenging, yes. In every group of employees you always have one that you wish didn't work for you. But, you have others that show promise, and can do great things. It is a great source of pride for me to help them develop and increase their range and influence. Perhaps the greatest personal satisfaction I get from my job is related to developing strategy - helping my company reach greater levels. I could never do that in the lab.
Enough concretes, let's pull back to principles. Look at how this relates to John and his incompetent, teflon-coated coworker. Whatever you do in life, be the best damn person you can be at it. Stick to your guns, work hard and do the best you can. Someone will notice. Don't worry about the other guy, you can only control yourself. At one point in The Fountainhead, Peter Keating was very successful and Howard Raork was toiling away in a quarry. I know who I would rather be.......
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Good News on Free Speech
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 11:49:44 mst
Name: Dana H.
Jennifer, if you're going to continue to criticize the IJ approach, I just have to say that you are missing the boat big-time. Other than ARI and affiliates, IJ is the only large advocacy group defending freedom on proper, principled grounds -- but in the legal sphere rather than the philosophical sphere. They do a brilliant job relating the moral to the practical. They choose sympathetic clients such that even the man on the street can see the rightness of their causes. And when they succeed in getting an unjust law struck down, that law remains struck down even for those who the man on the street might view with less sympathy due to altruist or collectivist premises.
At last summer's OCON, Yaron argued that the fight for freedom requires a whole network of think tanks and advocacy groups focusing on different aspects of the culture, that ARI can't do it alone. In this fight, IJ does more than pull its own weight.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 11:40:03 mst
Name: John Harris
E-mail: John.Harris00 at Gmail DOTlcom
Thank you both, Roger and Bryan.
Roger - yea, Its a sign; I need to find a better job.
John
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 10:12:42 mst
Name: William H Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/profile
Bryan,
A qualification I would like to make from your point about the 10/80/10 rule comes from the "job search" training my former employer paid for for me when they abolished my job category and let me go. They talked there about primary work motivations, among which were managerial competence (the drive to exercise skill and judgment in making the best use of other people's work) and technical competence (the drive to exercise skill and judgment in directly performing a task yourself) . . . along with other drives such as wanting to start something new or wanting work that doesn't interfere with your pursuit of some nonwork goal.
Now, their description of the "technical competence" type included the trait of liking to do actual physical and/or intellectual tasks as well as possible, but regarding managing or supervising other people as unavoidable tedium that goes with getting those tasks done, not as something rewarding in itself. And I was struck by that, because that's how I've always felt about the matter. I deliberately made choices at work that avoided my getting onto the managerial track, even though they limited my chances of promotion. But I don't consider that to be a lack of ambition. I was eager to learn how to do the actual work of copy editing better, and I enjoyed training other people in it and teaching a course on English grammar for the other copy editors; I just wasn't eager for a "promotion" that would shift me from copy editing to managing people. I respect people who can do that, and see the value of their work, but I don't want to be one of them.
That's one of the peculiarities of the American corporate structure. It actually seems that management theory recognizes that a lot of people are differently motivated. But the reward structure is based on the idea that the best reward you can give someone is to turn them into a manager, and on viewing people to whom that's not a reward but a cost as "unambitious." Perhaps because, almost unavoidably, the reward structure is shaped by managers, most of whom got into that position because they value managerial competence, and so it's natural for them to think first of suitable rewards for their own motivational pattern. Or perhaps not; I've never been a manager, so I don't know how managers actually think about this. But it always seemed something of a paradox to me.
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 9:19:30 mst
Name: Arthor Bearing
E-mail: arthorbearing(at)gmail.com
URL: http://arthorbearing.com
http://arthorbearing.com/2009/07/criminal-law-is-unnecessary/
First lines:
"An Illustrative Hypothetical Question to Feed Your Thoughts
Which would be a more effective deterrent against crime: a well-armed populace of people willing to assert their freedoms, or the threat of governmental punishment? After your knee-jerk response, whichever it is, take a second to really think it over because it’s a close question."
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Good News on Free Speech
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 9:14:32 mst
Name: Jennifer Snow
E-mail: Snowconic(at)hotmail.com
URL: http://literatrix.blogspot.com
Kyle, while that is true, the practical argument often doesn't hold up under scrutiny. You can talk broad trends (which is still considered abstract, theoretical, and pie-in-the-sky by pragmatists), but the truth is that a lot of the immediate effects of "deregulation" are really ugly and you cannot convince someone that the Russian Mob or the Bolivian Water Scandal are good things because they are not. The removal of a few legal restrictions won't suddenly produce some lovely results you can point at precisely because people are not automatons. Very rarely are there widespread immediate bad effects of regulations that you can point to and say "see, this is what we were talking about!" The bad results are long term, complex, and sometimes unmeasurable.
If you have a definite plan that these laws are preventing, then I can understand the need for this particular battle at this time. Otherwise I think you would be a lot better off campaigning to keep *new* regulations off the books like, say, Lin Zinzer did with the Colorado universal health care "plan".
It's your money and your time. If this is what you want to do, great. But where do you go from here?
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
| Wednesday Open Thread #73
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 8:42:56 mst
Name: Dave B
E-mail: Blankenstein0582(at)aol.com
On the lighter side, I would like to "wish" you all a great Independence Day! If any of you are able to attend a tea party rally (protest?), I hope to see some video about it here or on youtube if at all possible. Since I will be unable to attend any of them, I have to settle for experiencing it vicariously through others. :-( Oh well, I'll just kick back with a cold one --- \~/ --- and watch for your reports on these events. Thanks in advance!
View Blog Post / View All Post Comments / Post Your Comment
|
|
|
