December 12, 2004


The husband finished Atlas Shrugged the other day; I still have a couple hundred pages left. But what I'm noticing as I'm reading is a sad parallel between what's happening in the book and what I've been reading on blogs lately. Take this gem for example: In Britain, if you want to replace a broken window or rewire the lighting in your house, you have to ask the government's permission. Bureaucrats have to come and make sure your home still meets Kyoto regulations. Of how 'bout this from the Netherlands: The government would pay artists with taxpayers' money to create art, which would be stored in a warehouse, just so that people could have a job.

So how do people react to a society of "each according to his need", of government control of everything, of forced multiculturalism? They want to leave:

"Van Gogh's death was a confirmation for them of what they already sensed was happening," he said. "They're accountants, teachers, nurses, businessmen and bricklayers, from all walks of life. They see things going on every day in this country that are quite unbelievable. They see no clear message from the government, and they are afraid it's becoming irreversible, that's why they are leaving."
Ellen, 43, a lawyer and banker who votes for the free-market Liberals, said the code of behaviour regulating daily life in the Netherlands was breaking down.

"People no longer know what to expect from each other. There are so many rules, but nobody sticks to them. They just do as they want. They just execute people on the streets, it's shocking when you see this for the first time," she said. "We've become so tolerant that everybody thinks they can fight their own wars here. Van Gogh is killed, and then people throw bombs at mosques and churches. It's escalating because the police and the state aren't doing anything about it.

"There's a feeling of injustice that if you do things right, if you work hard and pay your taxes, you're punished, and those who don't are rewarded. People can come and live here illegally and get payments. How is that possible?

"We didn't think about how we should integrate people, to make sure that we actually talk to each other and know each other, instead of living in ghettoes with different rules.

Is life imitating art, or did Ayn Rand predict all of this?

(But don't forget that our country isn't immune to ridiculous government spending...)

Posted by: Sarah at 04:13 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.

1 "There's a feeling of injustice that if you do things right, if you work hard and pay your taxes, you're punished, and those who don't are rewarded." Funny, that's just what Kerry/Edwards were saying during the election.

Posted by: mrgumby2u at December 13, 2004 08:38 PM (5nwX5)

2 Yeah, I agree with mrgumby2u. In addition ellen's point seems to be she wants *more* government regulation, and more conformism, not less. she just wants to make sure that everyone conforms as much as she does. Sure sounds like hell in england, though, 'cause it could never happen here that the government would come in and tell, like, a builder that he should build to code so the building doesn't fall down, or that schools should be handicapped accessable so that elderly people, women with strollers, and disabled children could get into them. Odd that. But don't worry, Sarah, you could move to jeb's florida where builders are suing to prevent people from complaining about shoddy workmanship. REmember, you can *choose* to give up your rights and then you will be everyone's favorite mark. BUt that's still a kind of favorite, so I guess that's ok. aimai

Posted by: aimai at December 14, 2004 05:39 PM (aSNkY)

3 Huh?

Posted by: Sarah at December 15, 2004 02:03 AM (ya79V)

4 This has nothing to do with building to code. Yes, if someone is building for you, and they jack it up, then you have the right to recourse. But if it's your own property, and you decide not to hire someone to do handywork and instead tackle it yourself, the govt has no business saying what you can or can't do to your own home. If you have a broken window, and you choose not to fix it, then you're the one who will pay higher heating/cooling bills, have an ugly house, and likely not be able to sell it until you get your act together. Why on earth should the government intervene and say that you must fix your window and you must fix it with a certain type of glass, etc?

Posted by: Sarah at December 15, 2004 04:54 AM (ya79V)

5 Uh, part of the reason is that a broken window, for example, has a negative externality on the property values of all your neighbors' homes as well as yours. Nobody wants to live next to some dumb fucktard who won't even replace a broken window. That's why there are neighborhood associations all over this country (which are undeniably a form of "unofficial governmnet") - to prevent dumb fucktards from dragging down surrounding property values through their own laziness. As for your "a certain type of glass" argument, let's say that person goes to sell his house. The government's interest in regulating on this issue would stem from the consumer's inability to tell good glass from, say, glass that'll shatter with the first strong breeze. Rather than forcing the consumer to spend an inordinate amount of time researching glass types (as well as details on everything else that goes into a house), it simplifies things by placing the burden on the seller instead. Just replace your window with "a certain type of glass," and even though it may be a burden on you right now, you come out ahead when you go to buy your next house because you don't have to learn every last thing about home construction before you buy. But if you don't like regulations and government and stuff, there are plenty of places on earth where you can live to be free of them. Yes, they're mostly third-world shitholes like Angola, but I wouldn't expect that to stop someone as fucktard-dumb as you.

Posted by: fucktard-dumb at December 15, 2004 12:32 PM (M/ldG)

6 Dude, did you even read the original article? 'Making it easier for the consumer' has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: Sarah at December 15, 2004 12:41 PM (ya79V)

7 I wasn't responding to the original article. I was responding to your response. But way to intentionally miss my point. Keep trying to grok, maybe someday you'll finally succed.

Posted by: fucktard-dumb at December 15, 2004 03:11 PM (M/ldG)

8 Wow - did that ever go off the rails from the original posting!! The point is that legislation which rewards stupidity, and punishes hard work, is counter-productive to society and the general welfare. This places the burdon for supporting society on the backs of the few who work, and eventually these folks ('Atlas') will shrug, and let go of the load when it becomes too heavy and unbearable. I love Atlas Shrugged (and have enjoyed all of Rand's fiction) - it is a true classic!

Posted by: Barb at December 16, 2004 03:11 PM (q9AXC)

9 From what I can make out--big governement forcing private homeowners to fix broken windows is bad!--this thread is attacking the pride of conservatives everywhere who support the "broken windows" theory of ending crime, restoring values, etc. Mayor Giuliani credits this approach--you begin by fixing the broken windows (on private property, presumably) and then work up from there to a more wholesome environment--for turning around New York City. That commie . . . And as long as you're thumbing your noses at conservatives everywhere, you might own up to Ayn Rand's thoughts on marriage while declaring your admiration for her. Your husband's enthusism might entail a downside!

Posted by: notjg at December 17, 2004 10:58 AM (PBtSS)

10 gutter

Posted by: gutter at May 05, 2005 07:40 PM (tfAWX)

11 pocket bike

Posted by: pocket bike at June 25, 2005 01:43 AM (Zlipb)

12 mini bike

Posted by: mini bike at June 25, 2005 01:44 AM (Zlipb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
47kb generated in CPU 0.0124, elapsed 0.0768 seconds.
48 queries taking 0.0686 seconds, 143 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.