Atlas Rages Against the Machine

One of Paul Ryan's favorite bands is Rage Against the Machine. By the standards established by his Ayn Rand fandom, we should therefore conclude that he's a rabid Marxist, right?

Yes, I know: Ryan identified Rand, not Rage, as the reason he got into politics. But if you want to know how a legislator would govern -- or, in the case of a vice president, hang around with the people who govern -- you're better off looking past his words to check his actual voting record. And in that arena, Rand hasn't been much more influential than Rage.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    He needs to be all about the jock jams.

  • Fluffy||

    It's not actually that unusual a combination to me.

    Rand seethes rage on every page. Positively seethes it. Even her limited attempts at humor come through gritted teeth.

    It's the indignation. Rand is indignation personified. And RATM is (mistaken) indignation in musical form.

    Rand may have personally liked Rachmaninoff, but if she thought that was how she wrote she was mistaken. When she wrote she smashed her guitar into pieces on the stage, every time.

  • ||

    If Mozart was a red, RAM must be neo-Nazis. Ryan is a fascist skinhead.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    I think he might have misinterpretted "Rally 'round the family..."

  • sarcasmic||

    Next we're going to hear that he likes Wagner.

  • BakedPenguin||

    And Nietzsche.

  • Doctor Whom||

    But if you want to know how a legislator would govern -- or, in the case of a vice president, hang around the with people who govern -- you're better off looking past his words to check his actual voting record.

    Record, schmecord. Guilt by association, no matter how attenuated the association is, is how it's done.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I haven't been reading Reason that long. Where are the articles on Joe Biden and Jim Gray? Why the fixation with Paul Ryan?

  • ||

    There's a little box on the top right of your screen where you can find all these things, and more!

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I don't see any articles about music or reading preferences there.

  • RBS||

    Are you the love child of John and Tulpa?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    And that has something to do with articles about music and reading preferences because....

  • RBS||

    Because they both bitch that articles about their favorite politicians are unfair because the subject matter is not exactly the same. Asking for an article about Joe Biden's musical tastes because there is post about Paul Ryan's is what either one of them would do.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I don't see anything unfair about the article. Just because it's stupid doesn't make it unfair. Just curious how any of it is relevant and why this trivial bit of information is any more pertinent than what tissue Jim Gray wiped his ass with this morning.

  • RBS||

    It's a blog post. Apparently you are as unfamiliar with the concept as you are with the search function.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I see. Blog posts are supposed to be impertinent. Welcome to the club

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    I don't see any articles about being impertinent here.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Joe Biden's musical tastes are well known. He listens exclusively to Sun0))) and Tunguskan Throat Singing.

  • RBS||

    Sun0)))

    It's all starting to make sense.

  • Invisible Finger||

    I thought Milli Vanilli.

  • ||

    Because it's one of the trending stories on Yahoo right now. No need to be a dick just because we aren't fauning over Ryan.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Because it's one of the trending stories on Yahoo right now."

    A story about "Little Mermaid" and her plastic surgery is trending higher than this. No need to be a Koch whore just because somebody pointed out the irrelevance of a stupid blog post.

  • ||

    You asked why they had a blog post about it. They also have a movie review down below. It's not like every post is all actual politics and policy all the time.

    Plus it gives us an opportunity to rip on RATM for their inconsistencies.

    And responding to your post makes me a Koch whore? Did you switch brains with Tony or shrike?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    No, your conflating any criticism of anything written in Reason as political maneuvering makes you a Koch whore.

  • ||

    I'm sorry I didn't realize that Reason == Koch.

    And it's not political maneuvering when you complain about a lack of articles about Biden's music preferences?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    No, I'm simply asking what the infatuation is with all things Paul Ryan. Since it's a Libertarian site, you would think if something as trivial as music preferences was reason for a blog entry then maybe there is something trivial about say, Jim Gray, that would warrant a blog entry.
    If it's entertaining to some people to discuss the relevance of Paul Ryan liking RATM's music then so be it. That doesn't mean if someone thinks it's trivial and redundant to have a post about everything Paul Ryan every couple of hours that there's a vast Red Team conspiracy afoot.

  • ||

    I grok you. My bad.

  • Invisible Finger||

    I'm simply asking what the infatuation is with all things Paul Ryan

    I'm simply asking why you don't understand the concept of TIMELINESS?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "No need to be a dick just because we aren't fauning(sic) over Ryan."

    And IF I was fawning over Ryan I wouldn't nor would anybody else give a shit what he thinks about RATM or what they think about him. I might even be pleased with the undeserved publicity.

  • Trespassers W||

    Now John truly believes that he's worse than Obama.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Didn't Obama have Limp Bizkit or Linkin' Park or something on his ipod list?

  • Invisible Finger||

    Hell no. Too many white conservatives listen to them, white liberal-approved musicians are Dylan and Arcade Fire.

  • BakedPenguin||

    'Some of those who joined caucuses
    Were the same who raised taxes
    Some of those who joined caucuses
    Were the same who raised taxes

    Fuck you, I'm gonna do what the RNC tells me!
    Fuck you, I'm gonna do what the RNC tells me!'

  • Hyperion||

    I dunno if I am buying this. Ryan does not seem like a Rage Against the Machine kind of guy.

    I am trying to decide who I would guess to be his favorite band. I am drawing a blank. But I bet his favorite tune is that theme to the Munsters.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "I dunno if I am buying this. Ryan does not seem like a Rage Against the Machine kind of guy."

    From Tom Morello referenced in the article:

    "And Paul Ryan is clueless about his favorite band, Rage Against the Machine.

    Ryan claims that he likes Rage's sound, but not the lyrics."

    Then he goes on to explain how Paul Ryan doesn't agree with RATM's lyrics.

    And for that I rate the Stones article 4 Duhs

  • thom||

    I had him pegged as a Rush fan.

  • nipplemancer||

    I pegged Ryan as a Hootie and the Blowfish kinda guy.

  • ||

    For no reason, I am posting the saddest dog GIF ever. FOR NO RAISIN

  • tarran||

    LMFAO

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    OH NOEZ!

  • Christina||

    15 years ago today was the first time I went out with my now husband. It was two days after the RATM/Wu-Tang concert at Merriweather Post Pavillion and my husband (a big-time RATM fan) was still hyphy about the experience. So much so that as he drove me home the next morning, he played the self-titled album and told me, "I know every word, every grunt on this album."

    And indeed, he knew the words, the grunts, and every political position the band took. He could tell you chapter and verse about the need to free Mumia and Leonard Peltier, or how the Zapatistas were awesome. In other words, he was a passionate Democrat. But I used his love of RATM (and pussy) against him and eventually prevailed over him with my libertarian arguments.

    Then he introduced me to alt.music.rage-machine, and the two of us tag-teamed the commies that flocked there. That was fun.

  • ||

    Cool story bro.

    (What's the functional equivalent of surfer bro? Sis sounds way too weird.)

  • Christina||

    Well, I like "lady" since, obviously, I'm a classy bitch.

  • B.P.||

    I saw that tour in Indianapolis. It turned into a riot when the Wu told everyone to crash the barriers and get on stage.

    And... putting out on the first date to garner converts. I approve.

  • Christina||

    Well, I didn't put out that first night because of politics. I, frankly, barely knew his last name, let alone his political views.

  • sarcasmic||

    If someone's politics is influenced by entertainers, then they've got some serious issues.

  • Drake||

    RAM aren't Marxists. They are millionaires who got there by singing Marxist songs. I can't stand them personally and their smug condescending attitude would drive me to violence if I was ever in a room with them. But I applaud anyone who has become successful by producing and selling a product.

  • Loki||

    The sad thing is that they lack the basic level of self awareness to realize that the "system" they hate so much is what's allowed them to make millions of dollars selling music. Not to mention that they live in a country where they don't end up in prison for the messages they convey in their music. Unlike Pussy Riot.

  • Mo||

    You think it's odd that people more closely associate a philosopher with a person's beliefs than they would with a musician? There are loads of conservative and libertarian fans of RATM and loads of liberal fans of Rush. OTOH, there aren't many libertarian or conservative fans of Rawls or Marx or liberal fans of Rand.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Actually, I do know liberal fans of Rand. They like one or more of her novels. Usually The Fountainhead.

  • anon||

    Well, to be fair, The Fountainhead was more of an oppression by "peers" than blaming the Government. It espoused perseverance more than individuality, which is what liberals absolutely despise about Atlas Shrugged.

    Personally, I found Fountainhead far more readable than Atlas Shrugged; a better work of fiction.

  • Mo||

    I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm saying that they're far fewer and that the ideological tilt of fans of a philospher will be a lot more skewed and apparent than you wouldsee for music or other art forms.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They like one or more of her novels. Usually The Fountainhead.

    They like the guy blowing up the building.

    And, just for the record, if any architect ever blew up one of my projects because he didn't like the compromises I had to make to get the damn thing approved?

    Defending himself in front of a jury would be the last thing he'd be worried about.

    There ain't anything libertarian about blowing up this libertarian's development projects.

    P.S. I'd have guessed they liked "Anthem", too.

  • Fluffy||

    If you signed a contract saying that the building would be built exactly as designed with no changes, and then changed it, you should be happy if he just blows the building up and doesn't cave your head in with a pipe instead.

  • Ken Shultz||

    No such thing exists.

    Hell, change orders are often made just in the course of construction--by construction engineers.

    Her whole premise was preposterous.

    There are no perfect analogies, but hers in that book ignored some fundamental realities about the business. Among them, that commercial real estate projects are initiated by capitalistic developers. Why would I hire an architect to design a building with characteristics that I don't like?

    Hiring an architect who's already had plans processed through the city I'm working in is a big bonus--because they already know the quibbles of that planning commissioner and this city council person...

    The idea that you wouldn't compromise with them out of some sense of principle is ridiculous. I've got responsibilities to my investors and my own profit to consider. You make stands on principle that cost me more than they would add to my bottom line by changing them? They're gone.

    That's the job of an architect. To add to my bottom line.

    Frank Lloyd Wright may have been given ultimate and complete control by some of his RESIDENTIAL customers--but those people weren't building for profit. They were building for themselves.

    Oh, and, incidentally, FLW screwed up sometimes for the lack of scrutiny. Ask the structural engineers on Falling Water who, last I heard, were still trying to fix his mistakes.

  • Fluffy||

    Among them, that commercial real estate projects are initiated by capitalistic developers.

    You're aware that the project in question was a public housing project being built by the federal government during the Depression, right?

    The book is set in the 20's through the 40's.

    Hiring an architect who's already had plans processed through the city I'm working in is a big bonus--because they already know the quibbles of that planning commissioner and this city council person...

    So what you're saying is that city planning commissioners were telling the federal government what it could and couldn't build in the 1930's?

  • Fluffy||

    Basically what you're saying is "I would never sign such a contract" which means you wouldn't have to worry about your building being blown up then, now would you?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm also saying that if an architect ever blew up one of my projects out of a sense of principle, then giving a soliloquy in front of a jury wouldn't be the biggest thing he was worried about.

  • Drake||

    Are there liberal fans of Heinlein once they get past "A Stranger in a Strange Land"?

  • Juice||

    I can see Ryan now, pistol grip pump on his lap at all times, rolling down Rodeo.

  • Teve Torbes||

    I'm a fan of RATM and agree with some of their politics regarding the war machine and civil rights, but their economic views are misguided and immature. That can describe Marxism in general though. Their first album was awesome and they had some great tracks on the rest of their albums. Any music fan would agree that Morello is a virtuoso on guitar. Audioslave was fantastic too. I think libertarians can agree with some of RATM's politics.

    But voting for the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq and against women's rights doesn't mesh with Rage or Rand. Ryan is a confused neocon.

  • ChrisO||

    Morello is in no way a guitar virtuoso, though he is creative.

  • Loki||

    In some ways they're like OWS when it come to economics. They've identified the symptoms (corporatism/ cronyism, government favors for "the elite", etc.), but they've completely misdiagnosed the cure.

  • ChrisO||

    There are more unlistenable bands than RATM. But not many.

  • T o n y||

    Paul Ryan Is the Embodiment of the Machine Our Music Rages Against

    "I wonder what Ryan's favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of "Fuck the Police"? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!"

    "I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta "rage" in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions."

  • Juice||

    Why did you repost one of the links from the OP?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production?"

    This is the equivalent of "kill all the white people, but buy my record first."

  • JD the elder||

    "Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism?"

    Maybe it's the one where they go

    Satellites and, pair of mirrors and, and a man without a home
    With a horse, and a rider, and a clever, cunning killer
    Silent in error and vocal in spotlights
    Lying always sucking on a bottle of, that sweet, indulgent fluid
    Oh greed oh yes oh greed oh yes!

    I mean, that is a political view which is hard to argue with, although its criticism is surpassed in subtlety and incisiveness perhaps only by

    You thought you could get wit'
    Me and Tommy hittin' man
    Cold dropped a smash hit
    Angry as a battery
    Back in the funk
    'Cuz I'm not frontin'

    The man is truly a modern Hume...ah, crap, I can't even keep up the charade. I actually liked RATM a bit as musicians, but Morello has always been hilariously humorless and clueless. The idea that other people might take away from his music something other than what he intended really never seems to occur to him.

  • Drake||

    He does appear to have a nice house, just like the rest of the 99%.

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012.....a-mansion/

  • Ken Shultz||

    Just for the record,...

    I would defend Rage Against the Machine as more anarchist than leftist or socialist, and, furthermore, I'd say their politics were more influenced by straight edge than anything else. ...and that's goin' all the way back to when de la rocha was in Inside Out.

    Straight Edge people get misinterpreted worse than libertarians a lot of times, and I think a lot of people went to rage shows thinking they were more of a left wing band than maybe they really were.

    Anyway, if any of those fans bothered to ask Zach de la Rocha whether he thought the government was an appropriate agent for change or whether the government was the solution to our problems, I suspect they'd get an answer that sounded a lot more like it was coming from a libertarian than a Democrat.

    And the divide between authoritarians and libertarians is the only divide I really care about. I can't think of any Rage jams off the top of my head that advocate socialism or state control.

  • T o n y||

    Libertarianism is an authoritarian movement. You guys just can't see through the doublespeak.

  • anon||

    Yup, just the authority of law rather than men. Which I'm OK with.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Libertarianism is an authoritarian movement.

    That isn't even worth responding to.

  • T o n y||

    Total control of the economy and public policy by an entrenched wealthy elite is just the price of freedom!

  • Brutus||

    The wealthy are only wealthy because we decided, individually, to give them our money in exchange for something they offered us.

    Except, of course, those that got wealthy as rent-seeking looters, which is precisely the system you want to see expanded to the point of plenary control over who gets what.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The wealthy are only wealthy because we decided, individually, to give them our money in exchange for something they offered us.

    Some of them made their money the old fashioned way, they inherited it.

    Doesn't matter. We all have rights. We can't violate the rights of the wealthy without degrading our own rights. Oh, and the ability of poor people to work their way out of poverty is highly dependent on how well society protects EVERYONE's property rights...

    Across cultures. Throughout history.

    The ability of poor people to work their way out of poverty is highly dependent on how well society protects everyone's property rights.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    But you'd be okay with "Total control of the economy and public policy by the Democratic Party", Tony.

    Emphasis on "total".

  • sarcasmic||

    Depends on your point of view.

    If you are one who currently is in a position of power where the little people must ask your permission and take your orders, and then some libertarian comes along and tries to take that away from you, then you would indeed see liberty as an imposition.
    It is imposing on your power.
    How exactly would that power be taken away from you? Presumably by force.
    So from that point of view libertarianism is indeed an authoritarian movement, because from your perspective some authoritarian is using force to impose their will upon you.
    Granted it's a fucked up way to look at things, but when all you understand is force, liberty simply does not make any sense.

  • T o n y||

    Liberty is a hard-won and precarious state for human beings. You can't just go around declaring yourself free, because there are other people out there who might disagree with you. Enter the most essential, and violent and coercive, aspects of government, which many of you are OK with out of rational necessity. You can fill in the rest (about how for some reason a policeman beating you in the shin for walking on the wrong lawn is more permissible than being taxed to save a child from starving to death), as we've had this conversation before.

    What it all amounts to in practice is some billionaire saying "My taxes are low, you are free!" and idiots like you taking it seriously.

  • Professor Booty||

    You are fucking insane, dude.

  • Ken Shultz||

    No one here is advocating libertarianism as a means for an elite to control other people.

    The suggestion that liberty is impossible because the wealthy among the free would always oppress the poor isn't a defense of liberty either--it's an apology for authoritarianism.

    Having explained this to Tony for the fifteenth time now? Also makes it not worth responding to.

    He didn't learn anything from what people said to him the last fourteen times he said the same thing, so answering him again is pointless from that perspective, too.

  • T o n y||

    No one has ever adequately explained how the wealthy are prevented from entrenching themselves as plutocrats in a libertarian society. "Because they would all love freedom so much" or "because somehow without government power, the ability to exert power over other humans somehow disappears" are highly problematic. What am I missing?

  • Ken Shultz||

    That people have rights regardless of their wealth.

    But then you didn't really "miss" that.

    You're actively ignoring it.

    And that's another reason why your troll bombs aren't worth responding to.

    Honestly, people have suggested before that you're a collection of sock puppets--that you're like several different people. I don't know if that's true, but I have to admit, having had the same conversations with you over and over again, and you having no memory of us having had these conversations before would seem to support that.

    Regardless, why have the same conversation again, Tony? The archives are even more accessible after the redesign than they were before. Just go read those conversations again. Maybe you need to re-read your own comments?

  • T o n y||

    We have the same conversation because you never successfully respond to the criticisms, which admittedly may occasionally be poorly made on my part.

    But it's not your fault, as there is no successful defense of using government power to protect the interests wealthy property-owning powerful men happen to care most about but not the interests poor starving children care most about.

    "Those poor starving children could be wealthy property owning elites one day, therefore it's a free society." Do I have it about right?

  • Ken Shultz||

    But it's not your fault, as there is no successful defense of using government power to protect the interests wealthy property-owning powerful men happen to care most about but not the interests poor starving children care most about.

    So, what are we left with, to possibilities?

    1) Tony doesn't know libertarians want to protect the rights of poor people?

    We've had that conversation dozens of times.

    2) Tony thinks rights only exist if a majority of the voters vote for them?

    How many times have we had the conversation about how making our rights subject to votes gives us things like discrimination against gay people and Jim Crow?

    Should we have the conversation again about how MLK didn't accept Jim Crow just because a majority of voters in some places approved of it?

    WHY?

    We've already had that conversation fourteen times!

  • Fluffy||

    "Those poor starving children could be wealthy property owning elites one day, therefore it's a free society." Do I have it about right?

    Yes, you do.

    If we're talking about whether we're free, and not about whether everybody is currently happy.

    Your biggest gripe remains what it has always been: if you can't force me to support you and to do what you want, you might have to fear for the future, and that means you aren't free. Too bad.

  • Jeff||

    which admittedly may occasionally be poorly made on my part.

    Try "invariably".

  • sarcasmic||

    We solve the problem of the wealthy controlling government by giving the government more power so it can control the wealthy people who control it.

    And if that doesn't work we'll give even more power to the government that is controlled by the wealthy so it can control the wealthy.

    And if that doesn't work we'll give even more power to the government that is controlled by the wealthy so it can control the wealthy.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  • Trespassers W||

    A slow clap for you, sarcasmic. Plusgood.

  • Joe R.||

    No one has ever adequately explained how the wealthy are prevented from entrenching themselves as plutocrats in a libertarian democratic society.

    FIFY

    Modern society fails this test. I guess it could work, if you could find a few TOP MEN.

  • Brutus||

    That isn't even worth responding to.

    We oppress people by not forcing them to do stuff. It's like that study that labeled the Israeli Defense Forces as racist because of a lack of rape of Palestinian women. I am not making this up.

  • ||

    Holy shit Tony, I didn't think it was possible, but you just said the most retarded thing I've ever seen you post.

    Non-aggression principle. Learn it, live it, love it.

  • T o n y||

    Yes the nonagression "principle," which is of course implemented by asking people nicely.

  • ||

    It's not "implemented" at all dipshit. It's something that a normal decent human being would try to live by in their day to day interactions.

    You know like not defrauding someone or holding a gun to their head to provide you a good or service.

  • sarcasmic||

    It is implemented by using government to react to the initiation of force and fraud, while not using government as a proxy for committing acts that if committed by an individual would be a crime.

    Tony sees government as an agent to commit force and fraud on his behalf, so he is naturally hostile towards libertarianism.

  • T o n y||

    And to ensure that no one transgresses, do you cross your arms and look indignant, or do you expect men with guns to come and back up your claim?

    If everyone on earth were a normal, decent human being (with no basic needs unmet), then it might work out. But still probably not.

  • ||

    You really do see everything through a lens of force, don't you?

  • T o n y||

    Government force for certain interests, not for others. Government force to protect your claim to the right to own property, but no government force to protect your claim to the right to eat. We can conscript police and soldiers, but not doctors and nurses. Somehow there's a difference. "Because my system would make absolutely no practical sense" is pretty much the only reason you have to allow for that type of force.

    Libertarianism is the flimsy intellectual excuse to use government power to protect extant powerful private interests and deny it to everyone else.

  • ||

    You don't have the right to eat by forcing someone else to grow a plant or raise an animal for you. Unless you still believe slavery is okay.

    The fact that the government protects your property rights too totally chafes your ass doesn't it Tony?

    And your projections is showing btw.

  • T o n y||

    Then you don't have a right to have men with guns apprehend a trespasser. You don't even have a right to claim any property, as such a claim inherently involves government guns backing it up. Are policemen and judges slaves?

    Slaves are people forced to work with no pay. Not people contracted by government to provide a service (except police, judges, and soldiers who are exempt because you need your bobblehead collected secured).

  • Fluffy||

    You don't even have a right to claim any property, as such a claim inherently involves government guns backing it up. Are policemen and judges slaves?

    It inherently involves no such thing. That is an administrative detail.

    If we were on a desert island and I got a fish to eat and you did not, that fish would be mine by right. If you tried to take it from me, I would be morally entitled to use force to stop you, up to and including killing you. That is the fundamental basis of the right to property, dude. The police and the courts and the rest of it are the way we set about trying to enforce that right in an orderly and just way.

    Slaves are people forced to work with no pay.

    Since the right to property exists before government, the right to eat should exist before government, too. And if you do in fact possess a "right to eat", if we're on a desert island you should be entitled to force me to gather food for you. And what would that make me, exactly?

  • T o n y||

    If we were on a desert island and I got a fish to eat and you did not, that fish would be mine by right. If you tried to take it from me, I would be morally entitled

    Morally entitled by what or whom? Because you say so is the extent of it. If you had a horde of fish and I had none, the morality becomes murkier. Your right to what you caught trumps my right to live? That's the libertarian position. It's perfectly OK for you to have it, but it's not self-evident, it's just a stupid assertion.

  • ||

    Well if you weren't such an insufferable douchenozzle maybe fluffy would share it with you. But he is absolutely under no obligation to.

    From each according to his ability to each according to his need is a child's philosophy.

  • sarcasmic||

    Unless you still believe slavery is okay.

    As long as government is the master, yes he does believe in slavery.

    The fact that the government protects your property rights too totally chafes your ass doesn't it Tony?

    No. The fact that government protects the property rights of other people, specifically rich people who don't use their property in a manner that pleases him, is what chafes his ass.

  • T o n y||

    I'm asking for the moral defense of forcing people to pay tax money to protect a wealthy man's luxuries, while it is forbidden to take tax money to pay for a poor person's basic needs.

  • sarcasmic||

    That has been answered too many times to count.

  • Brutus||

    I'm asking for the moral defense of forcing people to pay tax money to protect a wealthy man's luxuries, while it is forbidden to take tax money to pay for a poor person's basic needs.

    Because the two things are directly opposite in nature.

  • T o n y||

    Brutus. It takes tax money to even have such a thing as property, unless property is just what you claim by might.

    Libertarianism: government that protects the luxuries of the rich but not the needs of the poor. How is this a morally tenable position?

  • ||

    You of course ignore the fact that the taxes the wealthy man pays protects not only his luxuries, but also whatever luxuries the poor person has amassed as well. (You know when the Democrats aren't joining the Republicans in beefing up the nanny state and arresting those poor people for smoking pot.)

  • Trespassers W||

    He also ignores the fact that the wealthy man pays more taxes. Justly so, but only by accident (it's rare to claim that that's WHY the wealthy should pay more taxes -- that they use more public services, and that this is a rough proxy for the fee-for-service model of government).

    So really it's

    "I'm asking for the moral defense of forcing wealthy people to pay more tax money to protect a wealthy man's possessions, and poor people to pay less tax money to protect a poor man's possessions, while it is forbidden to take tax money from a wealthy man to pay for a poor person's basic needs."

    In which case, I think we're all on the same page.

    Of course, "Tony" is arguing in bad faith as usual, so whatever.

  • sarcasmic||

    Tony's standard response to that is that taxes are taken from a rich person to pay a policeman's bills, which is a transfer of wealth, so why not take money from the rich person and use it to feed starving children?

    Why do you hate the children?

  • sasob||

    It is remarkable how those who claim to be concerned about the "starving children" always ignore the fact that most of them on this planet reside in countries where individuals' rights are the least respected by their governments.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Government force for certain interests, not for others."

    Yes, the force necessary to keep someone from interfering in whatever someone else wants to make of their life.

    People own their lives. People own the possessions they acquire when not transgressing another's rights to do so. People do NOT have the right to another's life or possessions.

  • ||

    ^^THIS^^

  • T o n y||

    People do NOT have the right to another's life or possessions.

    Except what's necessary to pay for the minimal state.

  • ||

    Nevermind that those could be paid for with usury fees. But you're probably against that.

  • T o n y||

    Any society orderly enough to be called a society will require coercion of some form and you can't get around that.

    You just want coercion to be used to keep the rabble off your lawn, and the rabble can go fuck themselves.

    It's an immoral, inherently plutocratic political system.

  • ||

    So you DO believe in slavery. Good to know.

  • T o n y||

    If your definition of "slave" encompasses every resident of every civilization for ten thousand years, then perhaps it's a bit too broad.

    These histrionics are at the core of the problem with your beliefs. Yes it is a tailor-made intellectual excuse for unlimited plutocracy, but it's felt with such conviction!

  • ||

    I mean the definition of slavery where you own another human being.

    YOU believe you have the right to a person's labor and the product of that labor for no other reason than you need or want it. YOU believe you should be able to force people to live and work how you see fit. YOU believe you have the right to force a doctor to treat you.

  • WTF||

    Wow, I think we may have reached peak stupid.

  • ||

    You can never reach peak stupid when Tony is posting.

  • Brutus||

    It's like an MC Escher edifice of stupidity.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    Stairway to Hurr Durr

  • nipplemancer||

    Straight Edge still exists? I thought that fad burned out when I was in HS back in the 90's. Do those fags still draw big X's on the back of their hands with black magic markers?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Inside Out was a straight edge band.

    In other words, I don't see where the politics changed when they became Rage Against the Machine.

    Just because they were perceived as a Left Wing band doesn't mean they were.

    If we could get libertarian messages to be thought of as being left wing by millions of people all over the world? that would be awesome.

    I think Rage actually achieved that--albeit not Libertarian on purpose.

    For instance, they had jams about stuff like anti-colonialism, which a lot of people perceive as being a leftist thing. ...but if anti-colonialism isn't libertarian, then neither is the Declaration of Independence.

  • Proprietist||

    I mean, Fugazi, Nation of Ulysses, and all the other straightedge bands were all pretty left wing. One can be left-wing economically and anarchist.

  • anon||

    This is true; their songs are more anarchist than anything.

  • Jesse Walker||

    I think their Che iconography puts them in a more Marxian camp.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Can you link to that?

    I've seen a lot of Zapatista iconography.

    And while the Zapatistas' economics aren't entirely hostile to Marxism, a group of people, who the government tried to steal land from, rising up, achieving autonomy, and remaining expressly anarchist the whole time? Denouncing all forms of the state as inherently oppressive?

    That isn't exactly communist either.

  • Mo||

  • Ken Shultz||

    I found it.

    And that's a shame they used it.

    I'm sure Che means something different to them than he does to us, but it's still a shame.

  • Brutus||

    More of those big-government anarchists we got to watch last fall.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Morello:

    "America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you've lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn't belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don't care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve."

  • Brett L||

    You'd be butthurt too if you sucked off all those record companies for two albums and the consolation prize of playing with Chris Cornell on a third.

  • JD the elder||

    I'd be more inclined to believe that if it weren't that Morello says stuff like "Maybe he'll throw U.S. military support behind the Zapatistas. Maybe he'll fill Guantanamo Bay with the corporate criminals that are funding his campaign."

    i.e., it's not that war and imprisoning people are bad, it's that we're making war on and imprisoning the wrong people.

  • Michael||

    That Morello op-ed is one of the most self-congratulatory pieces of shit I've read in recent memory. What an insufferable asshole.

  • Michael||

    By the way, I may catch some heat for this but sincerely feel it needs to be said.

    RATM completely blows cheese encrusted donkey dick, always and forever.

    There.

  • ant1sthenes||

    It's too bad his voting record doesn't match his artistic influences, or he'd be one of my favorite politicians.

  • D.D. Driver||

    For fuck's sake! Are we going to get thirty posts a day on this exact same topic. We! Get! It!

    He is also one of only a handful of mainstream politicians that is willing and able to talk seriously about entitlement reform. Most folks in his own party are too chicken to touch that topic with a ten-foot pole. That counts for something.

  • Bradley Strider||

    The GOP is currently bitching about reversing Obama's "cuts" to Medicare, and you trust these guys to fix the entitlement problem?

  • D.D. Driver||

    It's called "politics." It ain't all kittens and rainbows. One of the obstacles to reform are people who are currently relying on the programs. They are never going to agree to cuts to their benefits. That is never, ever, ever going to happen. (Never.)

    So, yeah, I do think there is a difference between reforming entitlements on a going forward basis and cutting benefits for current seniors.

    It's not like Ryan has just been faking his support for entitlement reform because it is such a popular and politically expedient thing to do.

  • ||

    What's funny is I used to really like their music. But the older I got, the more I paid attention to the lyrics. Dudes have a lot of hate in them for white people and capitalism (funny since they didn't just give their music away for free but signed with a major label). Then one day I was just like "meh".

  • Trespassers W||

    ^^^ That.

  • Voros McCracken||

    When it comes to Marxist bands, more Gang of Four, less RATM.

  • Rob||

    When you say more Gang of Four, you really mean Entertainment! and Solid Gold. Everything after those albums was complete trash.

  • Proprietist||

    YES! Love Gang of Four. Also, the Pop Group.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    True or False: Tom Morello is the only "thinker" in the group. I've seen de la Rocha interview Noam Chomsky, but, frankly, I don't think he's ever been lucid enough to read through even a four-page leftist tract, let alone an entire manifesto.

  • Loki||

    "And now I'm rollin' down the beltway with a shotgun!
    Obama ain't seen a budget plan since his green cronies bought him!"

  • Professor Booty||

    Win!

  • Caleb Turberville||

    "Millionaire Rockstars Against Individualist Ideals and the Peaceful Exchange of Goods and Services at a Mutually Agreed Upon Price Value" just doesn't sound as crisp, nor does it fit on an album cover. "MRAIIATPEOGASAAMAUPV"?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    TMZ has acquired a photo of topless Paul Ryan. Let's get on this story ASAP

  • Brutus||

    Goddamn it, the American people demand a discussion of important issues like where Paul Ryan puts the dog when he travels.

  • ||

    It'll be the picture that accompanies the PM links I'm sure.

  • GILMORE||

    One of Paul Ryan's favorite bands is Rage Against the Machine

    It makes sense. Statists love that band.

    Give me a politician who can't make up his mind between Meco, the Dead Kennedys, and Wu Tang.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement