Tesla Takes Another Round From Crony Capitalists in New York

Photo credit: jurvetson / Foter.com / CC BYPhoto credit: jurvetson / Foter.com / CC BYTesla Motors won another battle against auto dealers in New York late Friday night. State legislators failed to act on two bills that would have prohibited the state from registering any vehicle not bought through a dealer and forced Tesla to close its stores in the state. The bills are dead until the assembly reconvenes in January.  

The electric carmaker prefers to sell its vehicles directly to the public rather than through auto dealers—much to the chagrin of the dealers, who also went to the courts to try and derail Tesla. But, in April, a state trial court found that the New York dealers had failed to prove injury from Tesla’s direct-to-consumer sales.

From Auto News:

The New York bills would make it illegal for vehicle manufacturers or related entities to operate a dealership. Licenses for any existing dealership under manufacturer control would be ineligible for renewal unless the original license was issued prior to July 1, 2006.

Tesla has three stores and two service centers in the state of New York, all of which opened after 2006. All would have to close if the bills passed, a Tesla spokeswoman said.

Mark Schienberg, president of the Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association, told Automotive News late Friday that the state's dealer groups offered Tesla a compromise in recent days: They would extend the grandfathering date in the legislation to allow continued operation for Tesla's existing stores. Tesla turned down the offer, Schienberg said.

But despite the earlier grandfathering date, "we're not putting them out of business," Schienberg said.

Even if the bill passes, Tesla could still operate freely in New York by setting up a franchised dealer network like other vehicle manufacturers, he said.

But Musk has "just chosen that he'd rather not follow any of the rules and regulations and standards that each state has, and that's why there's a pushback right now," Schienberg said.

Diarmuid O'Connell, Tesla's vice president of business development, told Automotive News later Friday that the dealers' offer to extend the grandfathering date never made it to him—the point man for Tesla on this issue. But even if it had, O'Connell said he would have said no.

Of course, the claim that the dealers just want Tesla to follow the rules is a little much; the dealers wrote the rules. Dealers are powerful forces in statehouses across the country because states get up 20 percent of their sales tax revenue from dealers. And dealers employ as much as eight percent of the retail workforce in some states.

So kudos to Tesla for taking them on.

If you missed Steve Chapman’s Reason piece on Tesla last week, it’s certainly worth a read.

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.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Hey, it looks like their assembly lines are suspiciously devoid of union labor. Might want to fix that problem, Tesla, before you restart your business in the State of New York. Capisce?

  • Bam!||

    Robots demand worker rights!

  • Caleb Turberville||

  • Jon Lester||

    I happened across the New York City sales office when I was up last month. It's actually in the gallery district in Chelsea.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Before you start praising Musk as some kind of capitalist hero, don't forget that he's a corporate welfare queen.

    -jcr

  • KPres||

    I don't care if he's a corporate welfare queen. You have to be to survive in the current environment. I only care if he approves of it or not.

  • ||

    Yeah, you have to survive, but I suspect that is not what Tesla is about.

    It is a super crappy product that any idiot could see was guaranteed to fail from the start. I suspect the whole company was set up for the purposes of getting fed money, like all of obama's green projects.

    Get the money, do some busy work while you funnel rivers of cash into your personal account and call it a salary/bonus/golden parachute, then give an "Aw shucks, the business died".

    Obama gets to put another notch in his solyndra stick, you get fabulously rich personally, and in no time the failure of the company is forgotten.

    It is cronies looting the treasury.

  • Warrren||

    Solyndra Green is taxed people!

  • Nooge.||

    I logged in just to applaud this.

  • Warrren||

    I AM LIKE UNTO A GOD!

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I won't defend crony capitalism, but I do think Musk has much bigger goals than that.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Agree with Fatass. He was already fabulously rich when he started Tesla Motors.

    At worst, Musk wants electric cars and doesn't care how the venture is funded.

  • Sevo||

    "At worst, Musk wants electric cars and doesn't care how the venture is funded."
    Yep, he's more than willing to have the government take money from you and me at gunpoint to support his, uh, well, desire to keep that money.
    Fuck him. I have a vision also; can I get the government to steal money for it?

  • Sevo||

    Fatty Bolger| 6.23.13 @ 7:45PM |#
    "I won't defend crony capitalism, but I do think Musk has much bigger goals than that."

    You just did defend it.

  • ||

    Uh, where?

  • Sevo||

    Are you kidding? Read this:
    "I won't defend crony capitalism, but I do think Musk has much bigger goals than that."
    Care to explain how that *isn't* a defense of what fatty claims not to defend?

    How about:
    'Uh gee, I don't want to defend Communism, but that guy Stalin has great ideas!'

  • Warrren||

    His bacon-wrapped mozzarella sticks were simply amazing.

  • ||

    Presumably fatty means Musk's goal is to make good electric cars, not to be a crony capitalist.

    Assuming, arguendo*, that fatty is wrong about Musk's goals, that doesn't mean he's defending crony capitalism. That means his priors are wrong.

    *partly because I don't know or especially care

  • Sevo||

    Thane-kin| 6.23.13 @ 8:51PM |#
    "Presumably fatty means Musk's goal is to make good electric cars, not to be a crony capitalist."

    Yeah, the ends always justify the means, don't they?

  • ||

    Are you being deliberately obtuse?

  • Xenocles||

    Sevo is often uncharitable in discussions. He can be quick to assume the worst and very slow to see any possibility of reasonableness in others' arguments once he gets an idea in his head. See, for example, discussions on religion.

  • Sevo||

    I'm not going to disagree with your first sentence, but please explain how this:
    "Presumably fatty means Musk's goal is to make good electric cars, not to be a crony capitalist."

    Is somehow different from:
    "Yeah, the ends always justify the means, don't they?"

  • ||

    Fatty was responding to Suthenboy's contention:

    Yeah, you have to survive, but I suspect that is not what Tesla is about.

    It is a super crappy product that any idiot could see was guaranteed to fail from the start. I suspect the whole company was set up for the purposes of getting fed money, like all of obama's green projects.

    IOW, Tesla was simply set up to soak of government money; manufacturing electric cars is just their means of doing so.

    What I read fatty as saying is that while Tesla does/em survive off of crony capitalism, Musk's goal is to make electric cars.

    This is just a dispute over what the end is. Nowhere is it suggested that the end being more pure actually absolves Musk or Tesla of anything.

  • Sevo||

    "IOW, Tesla was simply set up to soak of government money; manufacturing electric cars is just their means of doing so."

    And every bit of evidence so far suggests that's *exactly* what Musk intends.
    The company was started by Martin Eberhard with Musk as investor.
    Eberhard saw the company as sort of a cottage industry, working to develop the technology; using income to fund the research.
    Musk, with his connections, saw an easier way; suck in taxpayer money. And that's what he has done, using the Obama-bait cars to collect government rents.
    Maybe you ought to do a bit of research before you get you pants in a twist.

  • John C. Randolph||

    It's pretty clear that Musk's goal is to sell Tesla to some major automaker like Toyota or Hyundai, but they've got the engineering talent to know snake oil when they see it.

    -jcr

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Exactly, Thane. Suthenboy said "I suspect the whole company was set up for the purposes of getting fed money." Like I said, I think Musk has much bigger goals than that. To be more specific, his goal is to create a major automobile manufacturer by focusing on electric cars, which he believes - rightly or wrongly - are the vehicles of the future. That doesn't mean I support his use of government money to do so, or support Tesla at all, for that matter.

  • Sevo||

    "Like I said, I think Musk has much bigger goals than that."
    Strangely, you offer no evidence to support that claim.

    "That doesn't mean I support his use of government money to do so, or support Tesla at all, for that matter."
    So you support it, but really don't support it?
    I'm confused.

  • SweatingGin||

    I started the day really liking Tesla (aside from it's a semi-super-car that wouldn't bet me to work and back -- ie, rich-guy toy). Read some views here that mostly changed my mind on them, vis-a-vis the crony-capitalism.

    That said, if Musk can break the dealer franchise crony-model, isn't that a win?

  • Sevo||

    "That said, if Musk can break the dealer franchise crony-model, isn't that a win?"
    For whom?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Well, he's made it clear for a long time that the goal is to manufacture mass market vehicles. And I thought that was pretty clear, I don't support using government money to build his company, and don't really give a shit if Tesla succeeds or not.

  • Sevo||

    Fatty Bolger| 6.23.13 @ 10:51PM |#
    "Well, he's made it clear for a long time that the goal is to manufacture mass market vehicles."

    Yes and Obozo has made it clear that he' going to lead the most transparent administration in history!
    Sorry if I'm missing something here, but stated preference /= revealed preference.
    Care to offer a bit of evidence that he's doing other than sucking at the taxpayer teat?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Care to offer a bit of evidence that he's doing other than sucking at the taxpayer teat?

    They're still following the plan he laid out years ago, starting out at the high end and slowly working down into the mass market. They followed their first car with a less expensive one, and have at least two cheaper cars currently in development. I'm not sure what other kind of proof there could be at this point.

  • Xenocles||

    @Sevo- For starters, there's a lot of potential wiggle room in the what he actually wrote. Your mocking summation of his remarks is a member of the possible ideas a person who wrote that could hold, but it is not the likeliest in this situation. It seems very likely to me that he meant that he thinks Musk's goal is not to get government money but to make electric cars viable. This is juxtaposed with people who just want to pocket government money any way they can. Fatty didn't seem to even set out to justify either government funding or electric cars, merely that there was some other ultimate goal that was not (and is presumably better than) profiting from government funding.

    Note that not caring about the means was labeled the worst case. That right there tells you plenty about Fatty's position. Whether his premises are based on valid evidence valid or not is a different question, but there's not much wrong with the thought process that follows those premises.

  • Sevo||

    Xenocles| 6.23.13 @ 11:10PM |#
    @Sevo- For starters, there's a lot of potential wiggle room in the what he actually wrote. [...]
    It seems very likely to me that he meant that he thinks Musk's goal is not to get government money but to make electric cars viable.

    Really, folks, give me a hint. I get called on being nasty, but when has it not been justified?
    Yes, X 'meant' something or other, but if you read what was posted, the 'intent' had nothing to do with realizing that.
    Please cite the failure, and I'll eat my words.

  • ||

    Who shoved the stick up your ass Sevo? I mean everyone else that's read his comment saw it a different way then you did. Multiple people have explained it and yet you are still harping on him and being totally contrarian.

    It's almost tulpical.

  • InlineSkate||

    While I agree it's a product of crony capitalism.

    I'm not sure exactly how it's a failure of a product.

    It seems to be universally praised, and sells moderately well for it's niche.

  • Sevo||

    InlineSkate| 6.23.13 @ 7:55PM |#
    "While I agree it's a product of crony capitalism.
    I'm not sure exactly how it's a failure of a product."

    Uh, because it wouldn't exist/would cost twice as much/would require costs to refuel it if it didn't get government support.
    The product sucks on its merits; it lives because you and may pay Musk to build them and the customers to buy them.

  • ||

    Not only that but the car sucks. It is a 100k lemon.

    Tesla sueing reviewers to keep them from printing their honest reviews of the product is a tip off.

  • Sevo||

    "Tesla sueing reviewers to keep them from printing their honest reviews of the product is a tip off."

    'But they guy drove an extra half-mile! What does he mean there's a limited range?!'

  • mad libertarian guy||

    While I agree it's a product of crony capitalism.

    I'm not sure exactly how it's a failure of a product.

    It seems to be universally praised, and sells moderately well for it's niche

    The car is a money losing product. The only reason Tesla made a profit is because of carbon trading schemes in CA.

    The latest round of Tesla wonderment came when it reported its first quarterly profit earlier this month.

    [. . .]

    Tesla didn’t generate a profit by selling sexy cars, but rather by selling sleazy emissions “credits,” mandated by the state of California’s electric vehicle requirements. The competition, like Honda, doesn’t have a mass market plug-in to meet the mandate and therefore must buy the credits from Tesla, the only company that does. The bill for last quarter was $68 million. Absent this shakedown of potential car buyers, Tesla would have lost $57 million, or $11,400 per car. As the company sold 5,000 cars in the quarter, though, $13,600 per car was paid by other manufacturers, who are going to pass at least some of that cost on to buyers of their products. Folks in the new car market are likely paying a bit more than simply the direct tax subsidy.

    Tesla uses government to steal money in many ways, both through direct subsidies, and by forcing buyers of other cars to pay more.

    Fuck Tesla and Musk.

  • Rhywun||

    It's cronies all the way down.

  • Sevo||

    KPres| 6.23.13 @ 5:06PM |#
    "I don't care if he's a corporate welfare queen. You have to be to survive in the current environment. I only care if he approves of it or not."

    The company exists only on gov't pork and/or trading on gov't rents.
    So I'm going to guess he not only approves it, he encourages it:
    http://www.campaignmoney.com/p.....p?cycle=12

  • Jerryskids||

    Yeah, hard for me to see how either side winning is any kind of blow to crony capitalism. Just seems like local vs. federal cronyism.

  • robc||

    Any kind of cronyism losing is a good deal, because maybe non-cronies can use it as precedent.

  • ||

    ^THIS^

  • Jordan||

    Yeah, there are no good guys here. Fuck Tesla.

  • SIV||

    ^THIS^

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Remember, Exxon and Koch Industries (among others) receive direct federal subsidies. Musk is only benefiting from indirect subsidies.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug| 6.23.13 @ 6:03PM |#
    "Remember, Exxon and Koch Industries (among others) receive direct federal subsidies. Musk is only benefiting from indirect subsidies."

    Lie, dipshit.
    Musk's company would not exist absent government payments.
    Go fuck your daddy.

  • KPres||

    The only significant subsidies Koch Industries has gotten came from the ethanol subsidy, which they've actively lobbied against. Show me where Elon Musk is lobbying against carbon credits or the auto rebates.

  • Sevo||

    "Show me where Elon Musk is lobbying against carbon credits or the auto rebates."

    We'll see him carrying a "Bush was
    Wonderful" poster first.

  • RightNut||

    The headline for this article should really be: Federal and California Crony Capitalist Takes Another Round From Other Crony Capitalists in New York State.

    $7500 per a car from the feds

    $6000 in tax credits from some states(CO)

    Letters from Tesla to buyers like this "Want to help make EV [electric vehicle] incentives a reality in your area? Encourage your local or state representative by calling or sending them a letter.”

    Rent seeking via carbon credits to the tune of $85 million this year:

    Yup, totally a blow to crony capitalists! Really Reason? You guys couldn't google for 2 seconds to find this stuff out?

    Here is where I got the info.

  • Jordan||

    Don't forget hundreds of millions in federal loans.

  • RightNut||

    To be fair they payed those back....but only because they are getting tons of money from carbon credits that they don't need sugar daddy federal government as much, Tesla has a new sugar daddy, the state of California.

    Tesla really is the face of Crony Capitalism. Yet because they want to sell cars without having to go threw a dealership, that somehow makes them a paragon of the free market.

  • SIV||

    a paragon of the free market.

    The paragon would be a government funded and subsidized electric food truck.

  • anon||

    It's Steve Chapman. Chapman is a dipshit. Sincerely believe it's Tony/shriek/whoever.

  • ||

    It's Ross, not Chapman.

  • LynchPin1477||

    You need a license just to sell cars? Really? It's like every day I find out ways that things are worse than I thought.

  • Bam!||

    Just imagine the sleazy used car dealers that would spring up if it wasn't a regulated industry.

  • Warrren||

    I have a used Tulpa. Good price.

  • A Serious Man||

    NFL punter Chris Kluwe has us libertarian Randians figured.

    John Galt as written lacks this rational empathy. John Galt is brilliant but doesn’t have the long-term vision to maintain the society that allowed his brilliance to flourish. John Galt is self-motivated but has no concern for the effects of his actions on other people. John Galt is a lone individual living in a world filled with countless teeming masses, and just as John Galt plants his feet on the backs of all those who came before him, he must provide a surface for future generations to plant their feet as well, not through sacrificing everything he owns but by realizing a stable society is ultimately a productive society.

    But that’s not John Galt. A world full of Ayn Rand’s John Galts is a world that will eventually consist of only one person, and then none, once his lifespan concludes. John Galt doesn’t care for the disasters that affect his neighbors — they can sink or swim on their own (and they’ll sink). John Galt doesn’t care for the public good, because all he can see is his own good (and he’ll wonder why it gets harder and harder to get the resources he needs). John Galt doesn’t recognize that genius arises under any circumstances (and he’ll never know how many geniuses he excluded from paradise because their parents didn’t fit his ideals).

    Why do we hate society so much?

  • Warrren||

    Fuck you, looter! Respond to your own comment!

  • robc||

    John Galt doesn’t recognize that genius arises under any circumstances (and he’ll never know how many geniuses he excluded from paradise because their parents didn’t fit his ideals).

    Doesnt John Galt himself, AS WRITTEN, contradict this? Unlike Ragnar or Francisco, Galt came from obscure circumstances.

    And I would also point out that Galt's Gulch is actually Mulligan's Valley ... he is getting resources from others, in fact.

    Has Kluwe actually read Atlas Shrugged?

  • Warrren||

    I'm sure many, if not most, of it's most virulent critics have not read it or any of Rand's books.

  • robc||

    So I forced myself to read “Atlas Shrugged.”

    First sentence of the article. Im not sure I believe him.

  • Warrren||

    Yeah, a fair reading of the description of employee behavior at Twentieth Century Motors would show how generous they were towards their fellows.

    That is up until the company went socialistic.

  • anon||

    I'm sure many, if not most, of it's most virulent critics have not read it or any of Rand's books.

    "Wow, that's a lot of words. Holy shit, single spaced too! Fuck this shit."

    How I imagine everyone that says they've read something yet they obviously haven't.

  • A Serious Man||

    From the article:

    So I forced myself to read “Atlas Shrugged.” Apparently I harbor masochistic tendencies; it was a long, hard slog, and by the end I felt as if Ayn Rand had violently beaten me about the head and shoulders with words. I feel I would be doing all of you a disservice (especially those who think Rand is really super-duper awesome) if i didn’t share some thoughts on this weighty tome.

    By that I'm sure he skimmed it and was only looking for passages with which he could support his own biases against Rand.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Has Kluwe actually read Atlas Shrugged?

    If Cliff's Notes/Wikipedia doesn't count, I'm guessing "no".

  • croaker||

    Kluwe got his information on Atlas Shrugged the way Verhoven got his information on Starship Troopers:

    He got the synopses of the treatment from a intern while she was kneeling under his desk gobbling his knob.

  • robc||

    she

    Im pretty sure Kluwe didnt get his info that way.

  • robc||

    Oh wait, Is Kluwe gay or was he just supporting gay marriage? I forget.

  • Warrren||

    He's married with kids, doesn't mean he doesn't like taking it up the middle though.

  • KPres||

    He likes the receiver spread wide?

  • Xenocles||

    Hey, Verhoven actually read two chapters. Give the guy a break.

  • croaker||

    Give him a break? Which leg?

    When he dies they better put him in an unmarked grave. Otherwise I will be the first among thousands to piss on it.

  • Xenocles||

    That should have been interpreted more sarcastically.

  • RightNut||

    Pretty common ignorance about Ayn Rand's philosophy. Maybe Chris Kluwe has been tackled a few to many times?

    I'm sure their are those here more knowledgeable about Rand, and correct me if I'm wrong, but she was not against helping others. She was against helping others because of societal mores that say helping others for no reward, emotional or otherwise, is the highest good. I'm sure the finer points of philosophy are lost on Chris Kluwe, but it would be nice if he tried harder.

  • anon||

    Not too sure about Ayn Rand, but any asshole can tell you that you can't possibly know how best to "help" me. I only have SOME of the information necessary to make such a decision, which is still but a drop in the bucket of the information I'd need to make the "best" decision.

  • ||

    Not too sure about Ayn Rand, but any asshole can tell you that you can't possibly know how best to "help" me.

    But "empathy" means that I do know how best to help you.

    I'm too drunk to read Kluwe's essay in full(dammit, I basically did) and I've never read Atlas Shrugged, but just like ignoring people who use the word dogwhistle, I ignore people who automatically claim that libertarians/Rand/whatever don't have empathy.

    Kluwe equivocates. We need "empathy" to help people in times of need, but we shouldn't just help everyone too much because that would reinforce bad habits. He takes no stand. Therefore, his essay is worthless. I guess he's arguing for limited government, but he played the empathy card, and if it's forced, it's not empathy.

  • KPres||

    What Ayn Rand thought:

    My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

    Reading the Salon piece, it sounds to me like Kluwe and Rand are just about on the same page. He's just too fucking stupid (or too interested in cocktail parties) to realize it.

  • Rhywun||

    I'm not a loyal fan (I couldn't make it through Atlas Shrugged) but I agree 100% with this quote & most of the related stuff I've read about objectivism vis-a-vis "altruism", mainly because it's not human nature for normal people to give a crap about anyone other themselves - not in the way that leftists routinely accuse everyone else of being.

  • Rhywun||

    And by "themselves" I should point out that I include those closest to one - family, friends, etc.

  • anon||

    John Galt doesn’t care for the disasters that affect his neighbors — they can sink or swim on their own (and they’ll sink).

    Wait, humans didn't exist before federal government? Holy shit I can't believe I had it -so- wrong.

  • John Jay.||

    I responded to Kluwe on Twitter and he replied back via direct message (i.e. privately) to say that he was only criticizing Rand, not libertarianism in general. Apparently the article's headline is supposed to be read as "Hey, libertarians: Here's what's wrong with Ayn Rand", rather than "Here's what's wrong with Ayn Rand [and] libertarians".

    So...alright. If anything, that makes it more annoying. Using Rand to malign the entire ideology is the hallmark of those who don't understand or don't care for libertarianism. If his point is simply that he doesn't like Rand, this is a pretty reckless way of saying it.

    [I have no opinion on whether Kluwe misinterpreted Atlas Shrugged, as I haven't read it myself. Is it as dull as it sounds?]

  • anon||

    If his point is simply that he doesn't like Rand, this is a pretty reckless way of saying it.

    His point is that he hates libertarians so he'll use Ayn Rand to discredit the ideology. It's pretty obvious.

  • ||

    His point is that he hates libertarians so he'll use Ayn Rand to discredit the ideology. It's pretty obvious.

    He's a self-described libertarian.

  • KPres||

    So is Noam Chomsky.

  • Warrren||

    And Bill Maher.

  • ||

    I think you get the point. Between that and the clarification he gave John Jay, it seems unlikely that he's trying to discredit libertarianism, much less "obvious".

  • KPres||

    Well, I don't see much benefit in libertarians going after objectivists, and I tend to be skeptical of those that do.

  • ||

    he was only criticizing Rand, not libertarianism in general. Apparently the article's headline is supposed to be read as "Hey, libertarians: Here's what's wrong with Ayn Rand"
    Using Rand to malign the entire ideology is the hallmark of those who don't understand or don't care for libertarianism.

    Aren't thse different things? Based on his clarification the comma indicates he is addressing libertarians. At worst he is concern-trolling.

    Also, it is a book excerpt and not a standalone article. I wouldn't put it past it Salon to eschew important context to get a swipe at libertarians. In fact I would be surprised if they didn't.

  • John Jay.||

    Right. Supposedly it's the first thing, but most of the article's content (and the more straightforward interpretation of the headline) point toward the second thing. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his intent, and maybe someone else wrote the headline, but unless he clarifies it publicly his intentions don't mean a whole lot.

  • Ted S.||

    Skip the speeches. Other than that, the characters are archetypes, not real people.

  • Virginian||

    If they aren't real, then how do you explain the current Congress?

  • Warrren||

    Congress is just covered in Orrin Boyles.

  • robc||

    the characters are archetypes, not real people

    The villains are 2D cardboard cutouts. In real life, the villains are only 1 dimensional.

  • Rhywun||

    Is it as dull as it sounds?

    No so much "dull" (although it is that in parts) as, I dunno, "overbearing". I only got a few hundred pages in but the characters are all hit-you-over-the-head caricatures - that sort of thing only really works in short fiction, not 1200-page doorstops.

  • SweatingGin||

    The amazing thing from it, though, is that it has these one-dimensional, kind of obnoxious villains, who just seem too fake.

    We have Senator Schumer.

    Barney Frank (despite his pot legalization push) made a great Randian villain. Feinstein and Pelosi, too.

  • Rhywun||

    We have Senator Schumer.

    Heh, I haven't given it a try in ten years or so - I'll have to give it another go and see how the truly awful villain caricatures match up to the truly awful Schumer. I'm a LOT more cynical now so that should help.

  • KPres||

    "Apparently the article's headline is supposed to be read as "Hey, libertarians: Here's what's wrong with Ayn Rand", rather than "Here's what's wrong with Ayn Rand [and] libertarians"."

    If it's directed at libertarians, why publish it in Salon? Did I miss when that became a major libertarian magazine?

  • SweatingGin||

    Salon has to get its straw-men somewhere.

    Wonder if they get a discount in bulk?

  • robc||

    Is it as dull as it sounds?

    No. And yes.

    They key is to realize when a character is going to monologue for the next 60 or so pages and skip ahead.

    Its not an easy read, but I didnt find it "dull".

    The Fountainhead is an easier read, but I thought AS was more interesting.

  • Ted S.||

    If Kluwe were smart, he'd realize that Objectivists aren't libertarians.

  • Sevo||

    "If Kluwe were smart, he'd realize that Objectivists aren't libertarians."

    This guy is paid to kick footballs. I'm not waiting for deep philosophical comments from him.
    Yeah, he supports equal benefits, but I'm not sure he'd understand that there shouldn't be benefits at all.

  • Warrren||

    They make that very clear, doesn't stop me from appreciating Rand's moral argument for capitalism.

  • KPres||

    "John Galt doesn’t care for the disasters that affect his neighbors — they can sink or swim on their own (and they’ll sink)"

    There you have it. Scratch any statist and you'll find an elitist piece of shit who think nobody (but them, presumably) is capable of managing their own lives.

  • Lolo Stahko||

    I thought Atlas Shrugged was very good, as a fantasy novel. In Rand's fantasy, all the villains are inept and unable to survive without the heroes, whereas in actual history that is rarely the case. We all have heard the quote "the only thing that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Likewise, there was a great absence of children in the novel. What of the children? And of libertarians coming together, "going Galt," the way they did? The greatest fantasy of them all.

  • John Jay.||

    Yeah, different people have different tastes, but that sounds dull to me. Heroes are much more interesting when the villains are ept.

  • robc||

    The villains are accurate, and not ept.

    I used to agree with that description of AS, but the last decade or so has changed my mind. The change started when the rolling blackouts were occurring in CA. That was almost directly from the novel.

  • KPres||

    "What of the children?"

    THE CHILDREEENNZZZ!!!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    John Galt as written lacks this rational empathy. John Galt is brilliant but doesn’t have the long-term vision to maintain the society that allowed his brilliance to flourish.

    His brilliance wasn't "allowed" to flourish. Galt bootstrapped himself up to become an engineer, invents something cool, then separates from his employer based on a basic disagreement of philosophy.

    John Galt is a lone individual living in a world filled with countless teeming masses

    If Galt was just some super-loner dwelling in a shack, how did he manage to pull off the strike?

    just as John Galt plants his feet on the backs of all those who came before him

    Who's back would that be? This statement borders on ancestor worship.

    not through sacrificing everything he owns but by realizing a stable society is ultimately a productive society.

    David Hume called. He wants his passive obedience argument back.

    A world full of Ayn Rand’s John Galts is a world that will eventually consist of only one person, and then none, once his lifespan concludes.

    A world in which people deal with each other without force or coercion? The horror!

    John Galt doesn’t care for the public good

    Liberty is not a public good?

  • Lord Peter Wimsey||

    I was going to write a response to that ignorant douche bag Kluwe, but fuck! Anon Coward just nailed it. Dude, you don't have to be anonymous anymore. Come out of the shadows and fucking opine. You are one of the cool kids now.

    Can I hang with you?

  • ||

    Why the fuck do I care what some punter in the NFL thinks. Last time I checked, you're playing a child's game and acting like you're god's gift to the world.

    Fuck off slaver.

  • Warrren||

    And he sucked at it!

  • Warrren||

    Why can't someone invent a vehicle that you put in some sort of, perhaps a liquid, fuel then you could drive maybe 350-500 miles before refilling it which may take only a few minutes?

  • mr lizard||

    Well I do ride a unicorn occasionally. But it's a pain to sweep up all the rainbow cookies that it shits out

  • Sevo||

    Such a fuel would be too dangerous for the American citizen without government supervision!

  • A Serious Man||

    I got to get me a Yoshi.

  • Warrren||

    An endangered species?

  • C. Anacreon||

    I had the same thought about people needing water to live, but have to buy it in expensive 16-ounce bottles that can cost $2 or more. If only there were a way we could deliver water cheaply to everyone so they had a plentiful supply without spending large sums at the store.

  • Greg F||

    Why can't someone invent a vehicle that you put in some sort of, perhaps a liquid ...


    It would be a terrible waste of vodka.

  • Warrren||

    Anyone going to watch Nik Wallenda plummet to his death?

  • robc||

    Im specifically not going to just because of the 1% chance of that happening.

    Dale Earnhardt was bad enough.

    Im kinda squeamish about that kind of thing.

  • robc||

    Also, not watching because it seems boring.

  • Warrren||

    Man walks! Tune in!

  • Warrren||

    And after Niksplat there is a new show, Naked and Afraid that is like Survivor only the contestants have to be naked.

  • Bam!||

    Any of the chicks hot?

  • Warrren||

    From the preview one is, the other is average, but buck nekkid. So gets a few points for that.

  • Generic Stranger||

    From the trailers it seems more like Dual Survival than Survivor, and no, the chick (there's only two people, and one's a guy) isn't hot.

  • Warrren||

  • Warrren||

    He's almost across, praising Jesus the whole way.

  • ||

    It seems to me that his thanking Jesus may be premature.

  • Warrren||

    Ha Jesus is the best! Suck it non-believer!

  • ||

    Yup, I'm sold. Headed to the church first thing tomorrow to be (re)baptized.

  • Warrren||

    He made it.

  • Sevo||

    And if he missed, would Jesus be telling him he's an ignoramus?

  • Warrren||

    For about 3.5 seconds.

  • Sevo||

    let's see, 1,500' at 32'/sec/sec...
    OK, sounds about right. And I'll bet the real comment would be:
    JEEEEESUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUS!

  • Warrren||

    From Wikipedia:

    Children Yanni, Amadaos, and Evita

    Seriously?

  • Warrren||

    Those are his ids names.

  • Warrren||

    JESUS! Those are Nik's kids' names

  • SweatingGin||

    Kind of like naming them Sue?

  • Sevo||

    "Tesla’s success comes from vision and superb execution—intertwined with DOE loan guarantees, cheap factory space and $250 million in zero-emission car credits."
    http://www.greentechmedia.com/.....ax-Credits

    "The Other Government Motors"
    "A Morgan Stanley report in April said Tesla made $40.5 million on credits in 2012, and that it could collect $250 million in 2013. Tesla acknowledged in a recent SEC filing that emissions credit sales hit $85 million in 2013's first quarter alone—15% of its revenue, and the only reason it made a profit."
    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....oveLEFTTop

    Tesla's business activity is trading in government rents; the cars are Obama-bait.

  • Sevo||

    Third link outlawed:
    "SEILER: TESLA LOSES $10,000 Per Car: Profit Made From Government Subsidies, Loans and Incentives"
    http://capoliticalnews.com/201.....ncentives/

  • RightNut||

    Ya, I beat you to it by like, an hour.

  • Warrren||

    However since Sevo was second he gets the subsidies. It's only fair.

  • RightNut||

    He'll probably get a hat-tip too.

  • Sevo||

    Sorry if you'd rather not have more evidence.

  • RightNut||

    Could have put it under MY comment, BUT NOOOO, you had to have all the glory!

    Also you made the thread needlessly messy.

  • Sevo||

    "Also you made the thread needlessly messy."
    Hangs head, kicks pebble...

  • robc||

    Also you made the thread needlessly messy.

    Sometimes I wish we would ALL (thats the key part) ignore the reply button and adopt the Brooks strategy.

  • Sevo||

    Seriously, why?
    Sometimes I have to scroll 'way the hell back up to see that 'the late' is referring to.

  • Ray||

    Can we cut the "Tesla as a victim of crony capitalism" BS? Besides the obvious fact that they're functionally a shop-vac superglued to the government teat, the only response from the liberals who jizz themselves over them to this article would be "SEE THE AUTO DEALERS NEED TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE GIT MONEY OUT OF POLITICS MANDATE ELECTRIC CARS"

  • SweatingGin||

    OT: Bitcoin foundation gets a C&D from CA.

    Interestingly, the order is dated May 30, and requires compliance within 20 days. Haven't been able to tell when it was received, but news of it broke today.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    "Welfare Queen Complains Can't Buy Booze With Food Stamps."

  • Warrren||

    Where my Obama booze at?

  • Atanarjuat||

    For the location of your ration of Obama goodies, please consult the MyHandouts app on your Obamaphone. OBAMA CARES

  • Warrren||

    Apbama RULES!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Shouldn't it be Reaganphone? The POTUS who signed the law giving free cell phones to the indigent?

  • Sevo||

    Uh, no, shit-for-brains:
    ..."the government decided in the '80s (under Ronald Reagan, no less) to institute the Lifeline Assistance program. In 1996, Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act into law, which offered either cell phones or landline services to low-income Americans."
    Go fuck your daddy.

  • Sevo||

    Ooops.
    Here's the link that dipshit hoped no one would see:
    http://gawker.com/5947133/the-.....with-obama
    Note the innuendo. Note the dishonesty. Note that dipshit is lying again.
    Go fuck your daddy.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yes, Reagan started free phone service for the indigent - I was just hasty with the "cell" part.

    Once again the GOP is the real socialist party.

  • Sevo||

    Dipshit, is it possible for you to post without lying and/or other dishonesty?
    Go FUCK YOUR DADDY.
    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

  • KPres||

    "Shouldn't it be Reaganphone? The POTUS who signed the law giving free cell phones to the indigent?"

    Yeah, but the people getting the phone thought it was from Obama, and claimed that's why they were voting for him.

    Maybe you should tell THEM it's a Reagan phone.

  • Sevo||

    Isn't that:
    OBAMASCARE?

  • C. Anacreon||

    Is this a SF'd link or are you just dreaming up fun headlines?

  • Lolo Stahko||

    I googled the phrase, here is what came up:

    {snip}

    A database of 200 million Electronic Benefit Transfer records from January 2011 to July 2012, obtained by The Post through a Freedom of Information request, showed welfare recipients using their EBT cards to make dozens of cash withdrawals at ATMs inside Hank’s Saloon in Brooklyn; the Blue Door Video porn shop in the East Village; The Anchor, a sleek SoHo lounge; the Patriot Saloon in TriBeCa; and Drinks Galore, a liquor distributor in The Bronx.
    {snip}

  • anon||

    Chapman misses the point that the Federal Government has made the barrier to entry for auto manufacturing so high that they're -all- rent seekers. Every last one of them. Well, at least the ones that operate in the US. Good thing they make everyone have tire inflation monitors. And soon backup cameras. Oh and stability control.

    Then again, I guess I have no place in such a discussion since I can't even abide helmet laws.

  • John||

    Exactly. And Tesla and their glorified golf cart is the worst sort of welfare queen crony capitalists. It is just disgraceful that Reason would have anything good to say about them.

  • Fruit Loops||

  • anon||

    Jesus fuck, we're doomed. If there are people this fucking stupid in the world, then I no longer wish to be a part of it.

  • Sevo||

    Pretty sure that link needs a more accurate title. How about:
    "Racists pissed!"

  • John||

    Do you mean the blacks or the whites? Looks like both sides are equally racist to me.

  • A Serious Man||

    While residents say they simply want to preserve their culture and language, critics argue that the mere existence of the community is a rejection of Mandela and his vision of a non-racial nation.

    Statements like that are troubling.

  • John||

    But I could give you a about a million from the ANC that are just as bad or worse. Beyond that, who says they have to participate in the "non-racial nation" whatever that is? Why can't they do what they want on their own land? It is not like they are demanding the rest of the country do as they say.

  • A Serious Man||

    No, I meant the statement that this private community of white people is a threat to a state-sanctioned vision is troubling.

  • John||

    Sorry. I misunderstood you. Yes, it is troubling. I agree.

  • Sevo||

    John,
    My response was directed at and limited to the title/link.

  • Rhywun||

    Do you mean the blacks or the whites? Looks like both sides are equally racist to me.

    Yeah, I kind of agree. South Africa has turned into kind of a mess, hasn't it. I think almost anyone - black or white - would be better off migrating to some place like Australia, as that lady in the article mentioned.

  • Virginian||

    Eh, they're not bothering anyone. They're not trying to overthrow the South African government, they're not lynching anyone or oppressing anyone.

    The old guy had a great point about Mandela. He really did choose to forgo the bloody vengeance that he could have overseen. He chose not to be the latest in a long line of vengeful black revolutionary anti-colonialists. He chose reconciliation and peaceful coexistence. But like that old Afrikaner said, I don't know that Mandela's successors will follow the same policy. When Mandela dies, what happens?

    I think modern SA is better than apartheid SA. But apartheid SA was a hell of a lot better place to live in then Zimbabwe or the Congo.

  • A Serious Man||

    When Mandela dies, what happens?

    It looks like we may be finding that answer out sooner rather than later.

  • Virginian||

    Yeah, and I can see it getting ugly. Mandela is really the only example I can think of outside of George Washington where someone was able to use the cult of personality to do mostly good things.

  • Lolo Stahko||

    It is sad what has happened to South Africa. The white south Africans are living on borrowed time, one day, I predict within the next decade, there is going to be a race war. It will likely take the form of a "riot," blamed by the liberal media on "disparity." The only hope for white South Africans lay in some type of ethnostate, likely in the desertish northwest where few people live. The only other option is emigration, but, other than Israel, the liberal West won't be very welcoming to potential white immigrants.

    I'm sure there are some here who think Kleinfontein is "racist" is a bad way, but they almost certainly would rather, if given the choice, live in a place like Kleinfontein rather a Bantu slum. The blacks themselves certainly do.

  • A Serious Man||

    Before moving to the town of some 1,000 residents, applicants must embrace the community’s “core values,” which are about being a Protestant Christian, an Afrikaner – the group descended from Dutch settlers – and speaking Dutch-based Afrikaans. No non-whites or Jews live or work within its boundaries.

    As racist and backwards as these people are, is it permissible for the state to tell them they have to let in people they don't want? It is their property and residence there is voluntary.

  • John||

    No. It really shouldn't be. The freedom to form your own private communities and civic structures on your own land should be a central tenant of Libertarianism. And frankly understanding that is where most of the nut cutting occurs between people who are actually Libertarians and conservatives and or leftists who want to smoke dope. If you are the latter, all that is great right up until someone you don't like decides to do it.

  • ||

    Do Tesla and/or Musk actually lobby for government subsidies, or do they just apply for / accept existing ones?

    (And even if they do, it's perfectly fine to decry crony capitalism used against them without a disclaimer BUT THEY'RE BAD TOO -- all the squealing from the usual suspects is getting annoying)

  • John||

    I don't see how it matters. The bottom line is they sell a product that no one but a few rich douche bags wants. They would not be in business but for the government supporting them. Their entire existence is nothing but a giant misapplication of resources.

  • ||

    1. It matters because if they are just benefiting from existing programs rather than lobbying for new ones, they are just being savvy businessmen. I don't have any problem with anybody sucking a pre-primed government teat. If a legislator decides to withdraw it and then they start complaining, that's a different story.

    2. The economic and moral wisdom of protectionism for car dealerships is largely independent of any problems Tesla has.

  • John||

    No, they are not savvy businessman. They are unprofitable ones who manage to suck off the government. And yes, the monopoly given to car dealerships is a bad thing. But it is not a bad thing because shit bags like Tesla who make a loser product can't get in.

  • ||

    I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. If the money is already on the table, the damage is already done and I don't see anything wrong with taking it (unless what you end up making is going to be used to further curtail liberty, e.g., if you're writing data-mining software for the NSA).

    It gets a bit more murky if you're dealing with grants, loans or incentives that could have gone unclaimed. That is more morally suspect and could play a part here.

  • Sevo||

    Thane-kin| 6.23.13 @ 9:06PM |#
    "I guess we'll just have to disagree on this. If the money is already on the table, the damage is already done and I don't see anything wrong with taking it"

    So promoting a company whose entire profit comes from government rents is just fine?
    You do realize (assuming you read the links) that Tesla loses money on every car that goes out the door, but makes the profit trading on government rents?

  • Sevo||

    Thane-kin| 6.23.13 @ 8:46PM |#
    "Do Tesla and/or Musk actually lobby for government subsidies, or do they just apply for / accept existing ones?"

    Uh, are you 'Weapons'?
    Irrelevant. Musk's company exists only because of government rents. Tesla would be bankrupt absent that, and Musk knows it well.
    He claims to admire Thatcher, but amazingly contributes to lefties; stated vs revealed preference and revealed liar.

  • ||

    No, whomever "Weapons" is, I am not him or her.

    A lot of people here wouldn't have (their current) jobs if it weren't for government rents.

  • Sevo||

    Thane-kin| 6.23.13 @ 8:58PM |#
    "No, whomever "Weapons" is, I am not him or her.
    A lot of people here wouldn't have (their current) jobs if it weren't for government rents."

    So ends justify means?
    Am I missing something? This is a site favoring libertarianism, not utilitarianism.
    Care to square that circle?

  • SweatingGin||

    There's always the old discussion of what level of helping the state is reasonable for a libertarian. I believe Rothbard had a few articles on it.

    Can a libertarian work for the government?

    Depends. Working at a state university might be okay, because university positions would still exist in the absence of the (total) state. I'd assume we can agree "Concentration Camp Guard" is right out, though.

    Running an electric car company? well, if you manage to do it one something less than grants/subsidies/donations/bribes, well, sure.

    Sorry, kind of muddled, just wanted to get the camp guard comment in there.

  • ||

    Depends. Working at a state university might be okay, because university positions would still exist in the absence of the (total) state. I'd assume we can agree "Concentration Camp Guard" is right out, though.

    Right. That's what I was trying to touch upon; perhaps I was too terse.

    Several people here -- libertarians -- work for the government and even more probably work in companies or industries propped up by the government. That doesn't necessarily make their action immoral.

  • Sevo||

    SweatingGin| 6.23.13 @ 9:49PM |#
    "There's always the old discussion of what level of helping the state is reasonable for a libertarian. I believe Rothbard had a few articles on it."

    I'd agree that there are gray areas regarding income from government sales or *unintended* income from government rents.
    I would not agree that starting a company which requires government rents to exist gets anywhere close to 'gray'. Flat out rent seeking, especially given Musk's political contributions.

  • John||

    http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/.....recursion/

    Wow is David Gregory an amazing shit bag. When you are such a Dem hack, the other Dem hack journalists are embarrassed by your behavior, you are quite a hack.

  • ||

    I can forgive you for not reading 24/7, but that's literally the 2nd post prior to this one.

  • Warrren||

    He was just asking a question!

  • John||

    And he does have experience with breaking the law to make a point. So there is that.

  • A Serious Man||

    Regarding NFL punter Chris Kluwe's attack on Ayn Rand linked above, here is Reason's piece on Kluwe in which he identifies as libertarian.

    Reason: You tweeted recently that you had just read Atlas Shrugged. What did you think?

    Kluwe: Not a huge fan. I like some of Rand’s ideas. I think the core aspect she’s missing is empathy. Without empathy you don’t have stable society. What do you do when the real world intrudes? What do you do when there are earthquakes or disasters? If you don’t have concern for the people around you, eventually society is going to collapse. I think that’s one of Rand’s flaws. She doesn’t consider empathy to be a worthwhile trait.

    Reason: It’s interesting that you see empathy as an important trait for libertarian philosophy.

    Kluwe: If you don’t care for anybody else you’re a sociopath. It’s about finding what that level of safety net is without living off other people. If you truly want to live your life for yourself, then you wouldn’t want to take somebody’s labor, because you wouldn’t want somebody to do that to you. Empathy isn’t just about taking care of other people. It’s also recognizing what your actions do to other people. I have to make sure I’m wary of what I’m doing.

  • Warrren||

    But the Randian archetypes do care about people.

    Reardon still provided for his wife and brother despite how they treated him. It's been awhile since I've read it but there are other examples. I just can't remember them right now.

  • John||

    That is a good point. And none of the "good guys" stole or harmed people. Somehow caring about others has been transformed into "doing things for strangers".

  • SweatingGin||

    Somehow caring about others has been transformed into "doing thingsforcing others to do things for strangers"

  • KPres||

    "forcing others to do things for strangers"

    And those others always just happen to be people they have an irrational hatred of.

  • SweatingGin||

    well, if they didn't have to be forced to help others, they wouldn't be hated.

  • ||

    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." --Frédéric Bastiat

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That's not some new transformation, unless you think Jesus is new (remember the story of the Good Samaritan).

    The new thing is noted by SweatingGin below, that caring for others means supporting forcing others to do things for strangers.

    And I don't credit Rand because "none of the "good guys" stole or harmed people." You don't have to harm anyone when the writer of your story does that for you. Cake and eat it too.

  • Warrren||

    Well, fuck. I missed the biggest one.

    Dagny tolerating James and imploring him to be a better person. A heartless sociopath would have just cut James loose at the first opportunity.

  • ||

    A heartless sociopath would have killed James for ruining the company her grandfather built with his own two hands.

  • Robert||

    Ever consider the possibility that Rearden's family loved him more than Ayn Rand knew? Just because she made them up doesn't mean she reported accurately about them.

  • Warrren||

    No they were the sociopaths.

  • ||

    If you really love someone you don't expect them to take care of you (financially). Unless you're a child.

  • KPres||

    "If you don’t care for anybody else you’re a sociopath."

    Well, technically a sociopath is somebody who's incapable of caring about anybody. That's an important difference (and the reason no decent psychologists believe the category even exist). Rand would say you should care about those you're involved with, but that that's a selfish caring. I'm sure Kluwe cares about HIS kids, for example, and believes he's being unselfish in doing so. But that's because he's fucking dense.

  • Rhywun||

    no decent psychologists believe the category even exist

    IANAP, but I have met several people who fit the generally understood idea of "sociopath" - which to me revolves not so much around whether they can care about anybody so much as whether they care about the people that us normals do - loved ones, friends, etc.

    Rand would say you should care about those you're involved with, but that that's a selfish caring.

    Exactly - and of course this connotation of "selfish" gets twisted out of recognition.

  • SIV||



    robc| 6.23.13 @ 7:29PM |#

    Also you made the thread needlessly messy.

    Sometimes I wish we would ALL (thats the key part) ignore the reply button and adopt the Brooks strategy.




    ^THIS^

    Remember the good ol' days before tReason bowed to NSA pressure to institute comment registration and threading? ;^)
  • ||

    Remember the good ol' days before tReason bowed to NSA pressure to institute comment registration and threading? ;^)

    I do

  • SweatingGin||

    Sometimes I wish we would ALL (thats the key part) ignore the reply button and adopt the Brooks strategy.

    I miss the pre-threading days. I miss the pre-registration, pre-Mary days, and I'd switch to a joke handle of some sort for this, but, well...

  • Rhywun||

    Yah, I miss the joke handles too. I know it's do-able but the effort isn't worth it.

  • SweatingGin||

    That's just any of a number of lifeboat situations.

  • SweatingGin||

    Oooh, Atlas Shrugged part 2 is on Netflix.

    Part 1 didn't get much right, but still was very enjoyable. 2 managed to get rid of everything that was good from the first.

  • Warrren||

    I liked them both.

  • SweatingGin||

    I just watched the first 10 minutes of 2, and was too angry to keep going (I know that it gets better when Rearden is on the stand and such, and the new Francisco is good...)

    I think I need to be not-work-night-drunk to appreciate part 2.

  • Warrren||

    I liked them because there is so little pro-business or pro-capitalism fiction out there.

    And watching collectivists get served is very gratifying.

  • SweatingGin||

    Ironman?

    It's just... I want to like it. I *actually* liked the first, despite the low budget aspect of it.

    10 minutes into rewatching part two, and I hate Dagny. That's not right!

  • Warrren||

    Good point on Ironman.

  • Warrren||

    Doesn't excuse Ironman 2 though.

  • SweatingGin||

    I *may* have been hammered for it, but this cracked write-up I was talking about is mighty good.

    Yea, too much robots fighting, but in between, it's a chunk of the essence of rearden's speech.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I thought the Aviator was pretty good pro-business (well, of course Hugh's later mental illness is show, but he's also shown as tirelessly working to deliver a good product and succeeding quite a bit) and painted the government characters in a negative light.

  • SweatingGin||

    It definitely is excellent. Mises has an excellent review of it from a libertarian perspective.

    After watching it, I went and watch the little bit of archival footage of hearings with Hughes in front of the senate. Pretty damn close.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Alan Alda's character could have stepped right off the page of a Rand novel.

  • SweatingGin||

  • John||

    http://pjmedia.com/jchristiana.....d-video/2/

    One of the hacks at the NH Attorney General's office is named Richard Head. You really can't make this shit up. And surprisingly, the women Dem hacks, are homely as fence posts. Who could have guessed that?

  • Warrren||

    Dick Head? Even his parents were incompetent.

  • John||

    No kidding. That vulgarism has been around since at least World War II. Anyone born after 1945 and has that name had seriously stupid parents.

  • Robert||

    What about Richard Bodde?

  • Robert||

    What about Richard Boddie?

  • Robert||

    What about Richard Boddie?

  • Warrren||

    What about him, him, him?

  • ||

    Kennedy hair: old and busted

    Bullock hair: new hotness

  • SweatingGin||

    Donald Sutherland 10 years after Animal House?

  • Warrren||

    Man walks down the street in this hair, people know he's not afraid of anything.

  • Rhywun||

    Kurt Vonnegut Jr at college?

  • SweatingGin||

    Faked his own death to work as a flack in NH state government?

  • Rhywun||

    I dunno, but now I miss Sam Kinison again.

  • Warrren||

    AHHHHHHHHHHHH! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

  • Rhywun||

    I saw him live when I was still a closeted, uptight, lefty college freshman - and he had me laughing my ass off at "old pussy" jokes. The man was a rare talent.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    It all started when he first saw Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls...

  • SweatingGin||

    I'll be in my bunk.

    For old-times sake.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I shit you not as I heard it from the man himself, Richard Head was the college roommate of former NH Congressman Dick Swett.

  • Warrren||

    There's got to be a Dick Cheese out there somewhere.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    There's this dude.

  • Rhywun||

    OMG, his version of NIN's "Closer" is one of the funniest things I have ever heard. Oh, wait, that's a different Richard Cheese.

  • ||

    Fuck Richard Cheese, only because I was back home at a bar over last Xmas and some asshole had taken over the jukebox with his songs. It gets old quickly.

  • Spoonman.||

    Ok, that is pretty good.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Breaking: Old person sick

  • Warrren||

    Dead Mandela Walking!

  • SweatingGin||

    Too soon!

  • Warrren||

    About 30 years too late.

  • Warrren||

    Will this relatively boring, non nut-punching post make it to 300 comments?

  • SweatingGin||

    They don't make it to 300 much without Mary and her otherkin.

  • Warrren||

    City State Agricultural Primitive!

  • SweatingGin||

    Really need a terribly divisive subject (abortion, circumcism, pizza) to take hold, and then you really need the weekday afternoon crew.

    Although yea, those citydon't censor me reasonable-statist weekend threads would hit 1500, easy.

    I can't remember who it was now (starts with an 'a', I think -- maybe pantsfan or almanian), but one regular add a reply to the first comment warning that below that point was only madness. Liked that part a lot.

    Still looked into the madness.

  • Warrren||

    The madness is attractive at times. Inviting and warm. Yet finally empty and enervating.

  • Rhywun||

    Gambol!

  • Warrren||

    Goddamn it you drunks, get in here and post!

  • Rhywun||

    Will this relatively boring, non nut-punching post make it to 300 comments?

    I'm only here because I took tomorrow off and I'm drinking. I'll do my best.

  • SweatingGin||

    I should take tomorrow off and finish the night out right. I'll be living up to my handle tomorrow.

  • Warrren||

    I've got some brandy, but I don't want to get too into it tonight.

  • SweatingGin||

    I now have an amazing supply of bourbon and rye at the moment. Fair amount of gin and everything else required for a reasonable bar.

  • Rhywun||

    I'm sticking with my usual vodka & Dew. I like gin but it just makes my head hurt the next day.

  • SweatingGin||

    Dew sounds like the headache part, but vodka is just so boring. It's like Gin, except not interesting.

    Mint Juleps (bourbon) for me, and then I switched to Negronis. Delicious, but I'm pretty sure the campari leads to a headache/dullness/sneezing day tomorrow.

  • Rhywun||

    vodka is just so boring

    That's a feature, not a bug for me... most other spirits leave me hurting in various ways.

  • Warrren||

    I don't. And haven't since I lost contact with a guy who managed to find a lot of things that just fell off of trucks at Army bases.

    I was such a third-hander in those days.

  • SIV||

    Jesus Fucking Christ

    You want a "nut punch"?
    I count at least 3 people in this video who need to be lynched.

  • Irish||

    I've seen that. It's fucking sick.

  • Warrren||

    Not watching it.

  • Generic Stranger||

    That nut punch is so two weeks ago.

    Still fucking hurts, though.

  • MJGreen||

  • ||

    *seeing red*

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    Alberta flood washes an entire house down creek

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

  • MJGreen||

    I hope you all watched the finale of Veep. Shit was fucking PRIMORDIAL!!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement