"Me ne Frego" to the Filipino "Ayn Rand" wannabe
Last afternoon, I read a post made by a self-proclaimed "libertarian" in his account, and it says:
"Oh come on. The poor should only get the crumbs. They're so overly reliant on the state that they do not do anything much about their predicament. They remain uneducated, lazy and destitute of culture. If the economy of the country is good, then there'll be more crumbs for them."
These words sounds funny at first, however it turns out that he attacks the poor in general, calling them ignorant, lazy, and even lumpen without any idea at all. That man, goes by the name of Carlo Miguel Saavedra seemed to be acting too personally in saying the phrase.
That man, allegedly living in Singapore and studying in De la Salle-Canlubang, somehow tries to act as if a "libertarian" of an "Ayn Rand" kind or a "Anarcho-Capitalist" who advocated much of anti-welfare and pro-profit activities as he called social security as "dole out" or predicament while the poor in general as comprised of the lumpenproletariat! How come he say so then?
Like the late libertarian capitalist and advocator of a "small government" Ayn Rand, Saavedra somehow simply creating foolish phrases as he enjoys the wealth of a first world country like Singapore. Like the phrase asking pro-poor people on why are they so "pro-poor", he simply assails the poor and calling them ignorant and lazy! If that's the case, then is the farmer who worked 24 hours a day in the field, plowing, sowing, waiting for plants to grow then reap only to acquire only a few bucks are all due to laziness? The worker, who also works for an overtime only to get a few bucks to meet bigger debts et al. are also due to laziness? Oh god! That man studying in La Salle perhaps needs an ocular visit or work for a month then experience what he may call laziness.
And somehow he shared ideas with the writer, from the book "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand said:
"...If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose- because it contains all the others- the fact that they were the people who created the phrase "to make money". No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created..."
True, and Saavedra, who advocated selfishness from his words, somehow also thinks of anything material can be seized, looted inherited, anything involving wealth as a static quantity and never to be distributed, democratized at all. And how come he lived in Singapore according to his Facebook profile? He must also know that Singapore also do a "welfare-state" like activity for its citizens, he may have benefit from it, and yet how come he opposed it by saying that the poor should only get the crumbs.
And aside from that, Saavedra also joined the wingnuts and the opportunists "rallying against Communism"! He assailed Ocampo as an NPA member, the progressives as "cheap" and "distasteful", calling mass demonstrations as "uneducated" and "radical" and even saying "enough" with "pro-poor policies" and yet how come he can't say his own brand of solutions? Like ANAD, for sure he called the poor "ignorant and that is why they are poor." As well as supporting the elitists, who wanted personal interests very much, using the phrase coming from Pol Pot:
"To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss."
To sum things up,
This guy is simply acting too personal as a "libertarian capitalist" of Ayn Rand kind. And for sure he kept on reading Atlas Shrugged and praising the dollar loving Ayn Rand most of the time-to the point that being selfish in the name of wealth is through work and never to be distributed pave way to happiness as one part said:
"...So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?"
For sure Saavedra may have called the poor, including the workers and the peasants as moochers and never to be supported for they are moochers who claim wealth by tears, of calling them lumpen too!
Anyway,
That person, although hard to explain shows how desperate he is. Benefited from Singapore's system, how come he speak of it? And as he came to the Philippines he started venting words that in fact barking at the wrong tree? Bah! That guy is nuts and feeling that he's Ayn Rand or something!
Saavedra, if you live in Singapore and enjoying the riches of it courtesy of its welfare state activities, then don't act like Ayn Rand or something, if you want that kind of attitude to get into action, then go somewhere else wherein your ideas belong to. For sure your main idea is absolute capitalism, then why not? And if you are still studying in Canlubang, why not study at Harvard or a real exclusive school so that you can't see farmers, who in your idea as moochers?
The lesson:
"Me ne frego"* to those who are against principles and giving damn to people who are devoid of aspirations. Saavedra's "ayn rand" attitude is a damn to the people, especially hard working poor individuals, both farmer and worker whom he called as moochers and be deprived of a six letter word called "wealth".
"Oh come on. The poor should only get the crumbs. They're so overly reliant on the state that they do not do anything much about their predicament. They remain uneducated, lazy and destitute of culture. If the economy of the country is good, then there'll be more crumbs for them."
These words sounds funny at first, however it turns out that he attacks the poor in general, calling them ignorant, lazy, and even lumpen without any idea at all. That man, goes by the name of Carlo Miguel Saavedra seemed to be acting too personally in saying the phrase.
That man, allegedly living in Singapore and studying in De la Salle-Canlubang, somehow tries to act as if a "libertarian" of an "Ayn Rand" kind or a "Anarcho-Capitalist" who advocated much of anti-welfare and pro-profit activities as he called social security as "dole out" or predicament while the poor in general as comprised of the lumpenproletariat! How come he say so then?
Like the late libertarian capitalist and advocator of a "small government" Ayn Rand, Saavedra somehow simply creating foolish phrases as he enjoys the wealth of a first world country like Singapore. Like the phrase asking pro-poor people on why are they so "pro-poor", he simply assails the poor and calling them ignorant and lazy! If that's the case, then is the farmer who worked 24 hours a day in the field, plowing, sowing, waiting for plants to grow then reap only to acquire only a few bucks are all due to laziness? The worker, who also works for an overtime only to get a few bucks to meet bigger debts et al. are also due to laziness? Oh god! That man studying in La Salle perhaps needs an ocular visit or work for a month then experience what he may call laziness.
And somehow he shared ideas with the writer, from the book "Atlas Shrugged", Ayn Rand said:
"...If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose- because it contains all the others- the fact that they were the people who created the phrase "to make money". No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created..."
True, and Saavedra, who advocated selfishness from his words, somehow also thinks of anything material can be seized, looted inherited, anything involving wealth as a static quantity and never to be distributed, democratized at all. And how come he lived in Singapore according to his Facebook profile? He must also know that Singapore also do a "welfare-state" like activity for its citizens, he may have benefit from it, and yet how come he opposed it by saying that the poor should only get the crumbs.
And aside from that, Saavedra also joined the wingnuts and the opportunists "rallying against Communism"! He assailed Ocampo as an NPA member, the progressives as "cheap" and "distasteful", calling mass demonstrations as "uneducated" and "radical" and even saying "enough" with "pro-poor policies" and yet how come he can't say his own brand of solutions? Like ANAD, for sure he called the poor "ignorant and that is why they are poor." As well as supporting the elitists, who wanted personal interests very much, using the phrase coming from Pol Pot:
"To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss."
To sum things up,
This guy is simply acting too personal as a "libertarian capitalist" of Ayn Rand kind. And for sure he kept on reading Atlas Shrugged and praising the dollar loving Ayn Rand most of the time-to the point that being selfish in the name of wealth is through work and never to be distributed pave way to happiness as one part said:
"...So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?"
For sure Saavedra may have called the poor, including the workers and the peasants as moochers and never to be supported for they are moochers who claim wealth by tears, of calling them lumpen too!
Anyway,
That person, although hard to explain shows how desperate he is. Benefited from Singapore's system, how come he speak of it? And as he came to the Philippines he started venting words that in fact barking at the wrong tree? Bah! That guy is nuts and feeling that he's Ayn Rand or something!
Saavedra, if you live in Singapore and enjoying the riches of it courtesy of its welfare state activities, then don't act like Ayn Rand or something, if you want that kind of attitude to get into action, then go somewhere else wherein your ideas belong to. For sure your main idea is absolute capitalism, then why not? And if you are still studying in Canlubang, why not study at Harvard or a real exclusive school so that you can't see farmers, who in your idea as moochers?
The lesson:
"Me ne frego"* to those who are against principles and giving damn to people who are devoid of aspirations. Saavedra's "ayn rand" attitude is a damn to the people, especially hard working poor individuals, both farmer and worker whom he called as moochers and be deprived of a six letter word called "wealth".
*I don't give a damn
