Why Americans Can't Afford to Live in Liberal Areas
- Thread starter SDBoiler1
- Start date
Very Randian conclusion: good "altruistic" intentions gone bad. We want to help reduce housing costs and improve standards of living for the middle and lower classes... so long as it doesn't require us to change our standard of living or reduce the value of our homes. The irony, of course, is that this suggests that coastal liberals are quite the Randian thinkers: they get something out of every exchange - in this case, increased property value - else they wouldn't be doing it in the first place.
Ha, oh my, I didn't read the article but you post it from Fairfield County, my wife is from New Canaan, and are serious about this, right?
Yeah, tons of liberals there, shit Greenwich makes New Canaan look like Cabrini Green, that's why it's expensive I guess, hell down here then I expect to see government housing on Sullivan's. Give me a break.
Yeah, tons of liberals there, shit Greenwich makes New Canaan look like Cabrini Green, that's why it's expensive I guess, hell down here then I expect to see government housing on Sullivan's. Give me a break.
The way Rand loathes altruism is why I can't bring myself to take her serious enough to read her.
Altruism is why we have archived dominance of this planet, remember she doesn't believe in God, so altruism in the simple act, like most animals, of a mother sacrificing herself for the well being of her offspring is one small example of "altruism" that allowed humans to thrive but says is evil.
As I understand it, and I have just read bits and may have it out of context, she doesn't believe we are born with any predetermined behaviors like altruism, but again, how does a species survive if the parents have no born instincts to keep healthy and preserve the family?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Altruism is why we have archived dominance of this planet, remember she doesn't believe in God, so altruism in the simple act, like most animals, of a mother sacrificing herself for the well being of her offspring is one small example of "altruism" that allowed humans to thrive but says is evil.
As I understand it, and I have just read bits and may have it out of context, she doesn't believe we are born with any predetermined behaviors like altruism, but again, how does a species survive if the parents have no born instincts to keep healthy and preserve the family?
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Two comments and you didn't even read the article? How about you read the article and then share your thoughts.
Yeah two comments and now a third and I still haven't read it just as I rarely read anything with liberal this or conservative that in the title. But I don't need to read the article to catch the irony of you writing that title living where you live and I don't need to read the article to have a view on Ayn Rand.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
And I guess you don't need to read Ayn Rand to have a view on her as well, very enlightened thinking.
Let's see, I have read articles about her, where she is quoted, I have seen her interview, I have read articles from her own institute re her philosophy and in reading those I don't agree with her philosophy but somehow Atlas Shrugged should change all of that and I will become enlightened? Okay
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Her definition of altruism and your interpretation of it are very different. Altruism as you define it is not evil in her view. "Altruism" as it happens in many cases, specifically where people are gaining under the auspices of self-sacrifice is evil. (Edit: also that the notion that we MUST sacrifice - that it is our moral obligation to do so - is evil.) Her opinion is that real altruism is rare, but perceived altruism is wide spread and "evil."
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This post was edited on 10/30 10:02 AM by gr8indoorsman
Posted from Rivals Mobile
This post was edited on 10/30 10:02 AM by gr8indoorsman
no it doesn't
The article does two things:
1. It lists a nice graph that shows that other than a few outliers (both ways mind you, take a look at Detroit) has red and blue fairly well close together.
2. It basically notes that cities are more expensive than not-cities to buy a home. No way! Next thing you will tell me is that the Sun ISN"T eaten by a wolf at night. Since when haven't homes in a city not been more expensive than homes not in cities?
Since when does owning a home define whether or not someone can "live in an area?" San Francisco is different in a myriad number of ways from New York which is different from Houston. I've lived in Houston. It's got a TON of wide open area, it's covers a TON of ground in ways that neither NYC or San Fran do. It's also less desirable to live in compared to the other two. There are 100 different reasons why one place costs more than another. Home prices are about location, demand, and supply. Detroit has supply, but little in the way of location or demand. NYC has location and demand, but no supply. Thus, Detroit is cheap, and NYC is expensive, yet both are "liberal." You can swap in San Fran for NYC. Houston has demand and location, but they also have supply. I thought conservatives were supposed to be good at basic econ 101 like supply and demand?
Doing an absolutely silly focus on one factor and then labeling cities "blue" or "red" is beyond ridiculous.
The article does two things:
1. It lists a nice graph that shows that other than a few outliers (both ways mind you, take a look at Detroit) has red and blue fairly well close together.
2. It basically notes that cities are more expensive than not-cities to buy a home. No way! Next thing you will tell me is that the Sun ISN"T eaten by a wolf at night. Since when haven't homes in a city not been more expensive than homes not in cities?
Since when does owning a home define whether or not someone can "live in an area?" San Francisco is different in a myriad number of ways from New York which is different from Houston. I've lived in Houston. It's got a TON of wide open area, it's covers a TON of ground in ways that neither NYC or San Fran do. It's also less desirable to live in compared to the other two. There are 100 different reasons why one place costs more than another. Home prices are about location, demand, and supply. Detroit has supply, but little in the way of location or demand. NYC has location and demand, but no supply. Thus, Detroit is cheap, and NYC is expensive, yet both are "liberal." You can swap in San Fran for NYC. Houston has demand and location, but they also have supply. I thought conservatives were supposed to be good at basic econ 101 like supply and demand?
Doing an absolutely silly focus on one factor and then labeling cities "blue" or "red" is beyond ridiculous.
It's been awhile since I've I read much on Objectivism but IIRC thIs is a topic she bounces around on because of its importance to her ideas of rational decision making.
It goes along with her philosophy needing to reject God in order to work. There can be nothing that predisposes us to help our fellow man UNLESS it's in our self interest or we choose to is how I've read her views on it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
It goes along with her philosophy needing to reject God in order to work. There can be nothing that predisposes us to help our fellow man UNLESS it's in our self interest or we choose to is how I've read her views on it.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
No, but actually learning about a subject instead of reading "bits and pieces" would allow you to speak intelligently about it. The example you gave about paternal instinct, not altruism, doesn't even give the slightest insight into her philosophy.
I could easy deem from the few comments you've made that you're arrogant and pompous but it really wouldn't be fair to determine that from such a small amount of information. I hate T.S. Eliots "The Waste Land" but I can form that opinion from reading it multiple times (class requirements), not information I learned from reading interviews or "bits and pieces" articles.
I have read about Objectivism, which was Rand's life's work, Atlas Shrugged is just a book of fiction based on the philosophy she created.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I think this is not entirely correct. Specifically, there is plenty that predisposes us to help certain other men - our children, for example. However, I think that she would rather someone say they did something because they wanted to, not out of some moral obligation to do so. In the case of the article linked by OP, people are all in favor of reducing housing costs for the lower and middle classes, however only if it does not do harm to the historical integrity or niceness of their area. Indeed, they do not want to do it because it would lower the value of their home. Thus it does not happen. If they chose to allow the poor and huddled masses to reside among them, that would be a "sacrifice." If they did it because they chose to out of the goodness of their hearts, that would be fine by Rand. If they chose to allow it because it was some perceived "right thing to do" (moral guilt), that is evil.
Here, she can describe it better than I (I think the beggar quote explains it best):
"If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a 'sacrifice': that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who's willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions." (John Galt, Atlas Shrugged, pg 942)
gr8: I like this passage because Galt is effectively saying that if you go around doing things for the purpose of getting credit - calling it a sacrfice when it clearly isn't - that is immoral.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice-which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction-which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good. (Philosophy: Who Needs It, pg 61)
gr8: Here, it's not that you shouldn't carry out acts of good will. It's that you shouldn't feel a moral obligation to do so at your own expense. "Moral guilt" is evil and in the end is simply acting on the will of others (those who impose that guilt upon you, whether directly or via "society"; acting in your own self-interest is human.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: "No." Altruism says: "Yes." (Philosophy: Who Needs It, pg 61)
This post was edited on 10/30 10:10 AM by gr8indoorsman
This post was edited on 10/30 10:10 AM by gr8indoorsman
Source blog article with these quotes
Re: no it doesn't
I thought the article did a good job of delineating that many "liberal" areas also happen to be coastal, and thus land-restricted. I thought the point about putting lower income housing in such areas is often impossible because of the various "excuses" of historical preservation, etc., which really translate to "maintaining value" was poignant.
Otherwise, I agree that correlation does not equal causation, and there's a lot of that going on here.
I thought the article did a good job of delineating that many "liberal" areas also happen to be coastal, and thus land-restricted. I thought the point about putting lower income housing in such areas is often impossible because of the various "excuses" of historical preservation, etc., which really translate to "maintaining value" was poignant.
Otherwise, I agree that correlation does not equal causation, and there's a lot of that going on here.
The example with the mother is exactly my point, Rand thinks the mother is making the decision based on "value" to her, my point it is the mother does it out of instinct. As you point out we, most of us, help children, the elderly, handicapped... Instinctively, for reasons deeper inside us than value, and Rand seems to rejects that idea and instead says we help based on value to us and/or getting recognition.
I think Christ also said we should help people without seeking recognition but Rand without a doubt rejects his philosophy.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I think Christ also said we should help people without seeking recognition but Rand without a doubt rejects his philosophy.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
I don't think she goes so far as to judge why the mother thinks the child is of more value than the hat; she never mentions the instinct. Instead, she is saying that it's not a sacrifice to the mother who truly believes her child is of more value to her (maybe due to instinct, but certainly NOT due to some imposed moral obligation to believe so) than the hat. It's what she wants to do in the first place. Calling it a "sacrfice" in those terms is thus disingenuous, and doing so seeking martyrdom is "evil."
There are plenty of people out there who have kids but don't want them or don't want to place the child's needs above their own. I do not think Rand would tell the mother who values the hat, "You should not place your child's needs above your own, and thus should let the child die," as many of her detractors would have you believe. Instead, I think Rand would say, "You should not have children in the first place," which, in my opinion, would be the correct answer in such a case.
This post was edited on 10/30 11:28 AM by gr8indoorsman
This post was edited on 10/30 11:28 AM by gr8indoorsman
Sorry had intended a longer post but am working and apparently everyone wants to clear their desk before lunch.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Note that she doesn't mention instinct. I did. She merely said that the mother chose to care for the child over purchasing the hat because that's what she wanted to do. I surmised that it was caused by "instinct." Rand doesn't get into the motivation behind the motivation much beyond the word "ego." Ego can be surmised to be "human nature" or "instinct." I suggest that it's her thought that supressing that desire to achieve for ourselves is "evil" regardless of the inspiration behind it (instinct, pride, ego, greed, etc.)
well
we have a pretty strong bias towards folks being able to do what they want with their property (and that's a good thing). So most of those excuses the article lists are really the owners of the property have a more profitable idea for that land.
If you want to look at this from a red/blue perspective, then I suppose you'd have to look at a variety of things. How does the median income mesh with the lowest percentiles? Where's the upper percentiles in relation to both? What's the average life expectancy? Unemployment rate? Job creation? How much does food cost on average? Gas? I mean a lot of that stuff is affected as much by exterior forces as "red or blue" forces in that particular city or state, but I suppose with enough data you could make some rudimentary delineations to frame an argument one way or the other.
But just going, home ownership costs, and dropping the headline "red v. blue" is beyond silly.
we have a pretty strong bias towards folks being able to do what they want with their property (and that's a good thing). So most of those excuses the article lists are really the owners of the property have a more profitable idea for that land.
If you want to look at this from a red/blue perspective, then I suppose you'd have to look at a variety of things. How does the median income mesh with the lowest percentiles? Where's the upper percentiles in relation to both? What's the average life expectancy? Unemployment rate? Job creation? How much does food cost on average? Gas? I mean a lot of that stuff is affected as much by exterior forces as "red or blue" forces in that particular city or state, but I suppose with enough data you could make some rudimentary delineations to frame an argument one way or the other.
But just going, home ownership costs, and dropping the headline "red v. blue" is beyond silly.
There's obviously no blanket statement to be made about this sort of subject as there are a plethora of factors. As someone mentioned, of course densely populated areas/cities will be more expensive than less dense areas. Also, you can bring up places like Detroit that are certainly nowhere near conservative and also very cheap.
However, there's also another side to this. For example, for a short period of time I lived in South Carolina and their taxes may be super low, but their infrastructure was horrendous. The wind would blow and you'd lose power. Look at that situation in Atlanta last year when people ended up stuck on a state highway overnight because they didn't have the equipment necessary to deal with ice on roads.
So you can make an argument for both sides of things.
However, there's also another side to this. For example, for a short period of time I lived in South Carolina and their taxes may be super low, but their infrastructure was horrendous. The wind would blow and you'd lose power. Look at that situation in Atlanta last year when people ended up stuck on a state highway overnight because they didn't have the equipment necessary to deal with ice on roads.
So you can make an argument for both sides of things.
The point to be made about Detroit is that years of bad left-leaning political leadership drove the city off the tracks. Detroit is the outcome of failed liberal policies and a dearth of good leadership. The city has essentially died. The city cannot even afford a decent police force or fire department anymore. People left the city in droves, their tax base evaporated, but they still had large pension liabilities and entitlements to pay.
California's bankrupcies, such as Stockton, San Bernadino, and Desert Hot Springs are all cities where liberal policies have created huge pension liabilities and entitlements as well, and people have fled these places for towns that are better managed and more stable. No one can say that these cities are cheap places to live.
The bankruptcy contagion will continue to spread throughout California, including to places like Los Angeles. There are rumors that Chicago is teetering on the verge of insolvency, too.
This post was edited on 10/30 3:38 PM by SDBoiler1
California's bankrupcies, such as Stockton, San Bernadino, and Desert Hot Springs are all cities where liberal policies have created huge pension liabilities and entitlements as well, and people have fled these places for towns that are better managed and more stable. No one can say that these cities are cheap places to live.
The bankruptcy contagion will continue to spread throughout California, including to places like Los Angeles. There are rumors that Chicago is teetering on the verge of insolvency, too.
This post was edited on 10/30 3:38 PM by SDBoiler1
so basically
every disparate failing of every government structure is traced back to liberal failings even unrelated ones.
So Detroit doesn't remotely fit the pattern, but you've come up with a different pattern that explains it away.
Yes, LA and Chicago, I mean does anyone even live in those cities anymore?!
every disparate failing of every government structure is traced back to liberal failings even unrelated ones.
So Detroit doesn't remotely fit the pattern, but you've come up with a different pattern that explains it away.
Yes, LA and Chicago, I mean does anyone even live in those cities anymore?!
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life:
The Lord of the Rings
and Atlas Shrugged.
One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession
with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted,
socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The
other, of course, involves orcs."
The Lord of the Rings
and Atlas Shrugged.
One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession
with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted,
socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The
other, of course, involves orcs."
Re: so basically
Detroit is a burned out hulk of a shithole city -that's why it doesn't "fit the pattern". Hardly anyone wants to live there anymore because it's unsafe and the city can't afford its own emergency services. The city can barely give away property. Parts of Cleveland are going the same way.
Detroit is the endstate of failed policies. If parts of California and the city of Chicago aren't careful they're going to end up in the same kind of situation as Detroit - a burned out hulk of a shithole city.
Thank you for making my point about LA and Chicago.
Detroit is a burned out hulk of a shithole city -that's why it doesn't "fit the pattern". Hardly anyone wants to live there anymore because it's unsafe and the city can't afford its own emergency services. The city can barely give away property. Parts of Cleveland are going the same way.
Detroit is the endstate of failed policies. If parts of California and the city of Chicago aren't careful they're going to end up in the same kind of situation as Detroit - a burned out hulk of a shithole city.
Thank you for making my point about LA and Chicago.
Atlas Shrugged was just a painful read. I enjoyed the content, obviously from my thoughts on Rand's ideas, but good god woman, I get it! MOVE ON!
How is Ayn Rand still a thing?
Surprised this hasn't appeared in this thread.
It's not okay to be a selfish asshole
Surprised this hasn't appeared in this thread.
It's not okay to be a selfish asshole
Latest posts
-
-
-
A Revolution of Common Sense - A Seminal Shift in Values- Latest: New Pal Boiler
-