quade 4 #51 April 17, 2014 rehmwaI actually clicked the link - Despite the author's bias - I think I tried to put the takers into categories without any positive or negative context. Just very simply: makers - private sector income takers - government provided income This is not the definition of the terms. The article has bastardized and co-opted the terms to fit the more modern and astro-turfed Tea Party agenda, because there is simply no way to use the terms in their original form in an attempt to have, at least on the surface and in theory, a populist movement which, in reality, is for the benefit of a small minority at the top. The terms were defined by Ayn Rand to mean capitalist leaders (like for instance a railroad baron or steel factory owner, aka the 1%) vs virtually everyone else "below" them (aka the 99%). Since in a capitalist society the workers do not own the means of production (aka factory), they "take" the benefits (aka money for working) provided to them by the largess of the "makers" of the world (the people who own the factory). You may know the concept better as "trickle down." What is good for the rich owner is good for everybody since the benefits will trickle down to even the poor. According to Rand, all goodness flows from the "makers" to the "takers" and never, ever, the other way 'round. According to Rand, society would collapse into complete chaos if any of the "makers" ever decided to leave. If you've never read her books, I can easily forgive you not knowing the context, but I can nearly 100% guarantee this is, in fact, the context the terms are being used in the article, yet slightly revised by the writer of the article for this more modern agenda. Her concepts are, of course, complete and utter bullshit. If you ever hear somebody using Randian language, you can almost guarantee they are simply doing so to justify their own psychopathic greed. As a point of reference, see the recent opinion piece written by Charles Koch in the Wall Street Journal where he repeatedly used the term "collectivist" which is also a favorite of Randians. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579475860515021286 The terms discussed in this post (maker, taker, collectivist) are pretty much a shibboleth so the Randians can identify one another. It's not a secret club or anything, but saying the words lets them know they are on the same side. Now that you're aware of the words, listen for them when self-appointed leaders of the "conservative" movement talk.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #52 April 17, 2014 Quote(since politicians only win votes by making people think they are getting something at the expense of another....pick either party, neither is clean in this regard) That's quite a jaded viewpoint. There are some people who vote based on what they think might be best for the society they live in, not just what benefits them personally the most. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #53 April 18, 2014 quade***I actually clicked the link - Despite the author's bias - I think I tried to put the takers into categories without any positive or negative context. Just very simply: makers - private sector income takers - government provided income This is not the definition of the terms. The article has bastardized and co-opted the terms to fit the more modern and astro-turfed Tea Party agenda, because there is simply no way to use the terms in their original form in an attempt to have, at least on the surface and in theory, a populist movement which, in reality, is for the benefit of a small minority at the top. The terms were defined by Ayn Rand to mean capitalist leaders (like for instance a railroad baron or steel factory owner, aka the 1%) vs virtually everyone else "below" them (aka the 99%). Since in a capitalist society the workers do not own the means of production (aka factory), they "take" the benefits (aka money for working) provided to them by the largess of the "makers" of the world (the people who own the factory). You may know the concept better as "trickle down." What is good for the rich owner is good for everybody since the benefits will trickle down to even the poor. According to Rand, all goodness flows from the "makers" to the "takers" and never, ever, the other way 'round. According to Rand, society would collapse into complete chaos if any of the "makers" ever decided to leave. If you've never read her books, I can easily forgive you not knowing the context, but I can nearly 100% guarantee this is, in fact, the context the terms are being used in the article, yet slightly revised by the writer of the article for this more modern agenda. Her concepts are, of course, complete and utter bullshit. If you ever hear somebody using Randian language, you can almost guarantee they are simply doing so to justify their own psychopathic greed. As a point of reference, see the recent opinion piece written by Charles Koch in the Wall Street Journal where he repeatedly used the term "collectivist" which is also a favorite of Randians. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579475860515021286 The terms discussed in this post (maker, taker, collectivist) are pretty much a shibboleth so the Randians can identify one another. It's not a secret club or anything, but saying the words lets them know they are on the same side. Now that you're aware of the words, listen for them when self-appointed leaders of the "conservative" movement talk. OH puleese! Use logic. You can do it. We have faith. Let us know when you have.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #54 April 18, 2014 Turtle, I would have thought you would have read Rand when you were a young man. I'm a bit surprised to see you hadn't. Oh well.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #55 April 19, 2014 quadeTurtle, I would have thought you would have read Rand when you were a young man. I'm a bit surprised to see you hadn't. Oh well. Why would you say that I haven't?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #56 April 19, 2014 turtlespeed***Turtle, I would have thought you would have read Rand when you were a young man. I'm a bit surprised to see you hadn't. Oh well. Why would you say that I haven't? Because if you had, you'd know damn well I was right. The article in question is clearly from a Randian point of view.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
