"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics

[Big Fitz]

There's a miniseries starting 3-27. Mildred Pierce.

Now THAT looks really good, whatever happened to miniseries' anyway?

Death by Cable.

 

[Big Fitz]

...what if one is most happy when one is also unproductive?

See, that's the problem with Rand. Ultimately she's forced to accept contradictions, or be rejected completely.

And if unproductive people aren't subsidized by either the willing or the forced, they quickly starve and die. Somewhere before death, they cease being happy and either become unhappy productive people, or get the point that life involves work and come to terms with their lives and become happy productive people. Or die. that is still an option for those who refuse productivity and don't have a host in which to be a parasite on.

The most ungrateful person is a happy unproductive person. Their comfort is not theirs, and they know it can be taken from them once people figure out the scam. At least they admit that if they're intellectually honest. Most aren't.

So, your premise is flawed.

 

[washamericom]

ask me anything... i don't know your "truner diaries"

have you read it ? are you saying it's a bad book/philosophy ?

If the shoe I cobbled doesn't fit you, there's no need to protest that your toes are pinched, Wash.

I don't doubt some of you self proclaiming conservatives have waded though that deadly long, screed plagued tome.

But when people here whose writing suggests that they never read anything serious, suddently start telling us how brillant ATLAS SHRUGGED is, I am more than just a little dubious.

I haven't read A.S since about '64, so no pop quiz will be forthcoming.

At the time I read it, of course, I loved it.

Of course, at the time I was a kid, too, and like most kids didn't know how the world really worked or how REAL PEOPLE WHO ARENT CARDBOARD CUT OUT LITERALY CHARACTERS act, either.

You know, much like Ayn Rand obviously never really understood human nature, and how most Libertarians notwits don't, too?

The woman was mad as a hatter, far as I can tell.

Mad as a hatter but crazy like a fox, as me mother might have put it

Same thing with The Fountainhead. The adolescent mind thinks the highlight is when the hero blows up his own building. And that makes it a great book. When my brother first read "Gone With the Wind," the most exciting part to him was the burning of Atlanta. Of course he was only 16 when he read it and the ramifications of the Civil War hadn't been absorbed yet.

it's always been there... like the book at the library. this goes back to my original post that when "the message gets to the people".

i would further submit that if this movie had come out in 2007 sarah palin would be vice president. this is what i meant by "may/will change the face of american politics". this general concept is what democrat partiers are most afraid of.

 

[gekaap]

And if unproductive people aren't subsidized by either the willing or the forced, they quickly starve and die. Somewhere before death, they cease being happy and either become unhappy productive people, or get the point that life involves work and come to terms with their lives and become happy productive people. Or die. that is still an option for those who refuse productivity and don't have a host in which to be a parasite on.

The most ungrateful person is a happy unproductive person. Their comfort is not theirs, and they know it can be taken from them once people figure out the scam. At least they admit that if they're intellectually honest. Most aren't.

So, your premise is flawed.

No, it's not flawed at all. If pursuing one's happiness is the highest moral standard a person should live by, then anything becomes justified, including being a fat, lazy slob who freeloads, even outright steals from others, who abuses others in less powerful positions of life. Accepting this is necessary to hold to Rand's views. This then puts the less powerful in a place where they are forced to "pursue" their happiness only inasmuch as they are avoiding the wrath of the thief, who is of course the most moral a person can be. De facto, the less powerful person is working first for his master's happiness, and his own happiness is secondary. Which makes him less moral. BUT, because his efforts are productive, his deeds are the most noble that any can be. Herein lies the contradiction. How can one person's deeds be the most noble any deed can be, if he is of lesser moral quality than the the most moral man? And how can the most moral man's deeds be the least noble?

 

[washamericom]

And if unproductive people aren't subsidized by either the willing or the forced, they quickly starve and die. Somewhere before death, they cease being happy and either become unhappy productive people, or get the point that life involves work and come to terms with their lives and become happy productive people. Or die. that is still an option for those who refuse productivity and don't have a host in which to be a parasite on.

The most ungrateful person is a happy unproductive person. Their comfort is not theirs, and they know it can be taken from them once people figure out the scam. At least they admit that if they're intellectually honest. Most aren't.

So, your premise is flawed.

No, it's not flawed at all. If pursuing one's happiness is the highest moral standard a person should live by, then anything becomes justified, including being a fat, lazy slob who freeloads, even outright steals from others, who abuses others in less powerful positions of life. Accepting this is necessary to hold to Rand's views. This then puts the less powerful in a place where they are forced to "pursue" their happiness only inasmuch as they are avoiding the wrath of the thief, who is of course the most moral a person can be. De facto, the less powerful person is working first for his master's happiness, and his own happiness is secondary. Which makes him less moral. BUT, because his efforts are productive, his deeds are the most noble that any can be. Herein lies the contradiction. How can one person's deeds be the most noble any deed can be, if he is of lesser moral quality than the the most moral man? And how can the most moral man's deeds be the least noble?

what crap... but you're really cute...

i forgot to mention that this is only part 1 of a three part thread. part two is forthcoming, and the part three i'm saving for the aynrandusmessageboardthisthread summit in vegas in the fall. so pace yourselves.

aynrandusmessageboardthisthread.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. Meaning the minority rights are also protected.

i think wisconsin is a good example. the democrat party and the publik unions were outmaneuvered, and they didn't like it. just as we were outmaneuvered by the big three obama reid pelosi) over healthcare, we didn't like it, but it was legal (not very ethical)
this all according to the law, and subsequent judicial review (if necessary)
by the way good catch on "they didn't mean the republican party" i was dangling a literal motzaball. u r sharp maggie

Healthcare coverage is not protected in the bill of rights or is a part of the Constitution, nor can the government force the citizens of America to buy a product.

Some theorists agree with you, many do not, and the courts will make the final decision. I think the bill is defensible in SCOTUS, but time will tell.

 

[JakeStarkey]

...what if one is most happy when one is also unproductive?

See, that's the problem with Rand. Ultimately she's forced to accept contradictions, or be rejected completely.

And if unproductive people aren't subsidized by either the willing or the forced, they quickly starve and die. Somewhere before death, they cease being happy and either become unhappy productive people, or get the point that life involves work and come to terms with their lives and become happy productive people. Or die. that is still an option for those who refuse productivity and don't have a host in which to be a parasite on.

The most ungrateful person is a happy unproductive person. Their comfort is not theirs, and they know it can be taken from them once people figure out the scam. At least they admit that if they're intellectually honest. Most aren't.

So, your premise is flawed.

Nope, your premise and analysis are flawed, and you are dismissed as the weakest link. I thought it was bigrebnc, but you just surpassed him.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the shoe I cobbled doesn't fit you, there's no need to protest that your toes are pinched, Wash.

I don't doubt some of you self proclaiming conservatives have waded though that deadly long, screed plagued tome.

But when people here whose writing suggests that they never read anything serious, suddently start telling us how brillant ATLAS SHRUGGED is, I am more than just a little dubious.

I haven't read A.S since about '64, so no pop quiz will be forthcoming.

At the time I read it, of course, I loved it.

Of course, at the time I was a kid, too, and like most kids didn't know how the world really worked or how REAL PEOPLE WHO ARENT CARDBOARD CUT OUT LITERALY CHARACTERS act, either.

You know, much like Ayn Rand obviously never really understood human nature, and how most Libertarians notwits don't, too?

The woman was mad as a hatter, far as I can tell.

Mad as a hatter but crazy like a fox, as me mother might have put it

Same thing with The Fountainhead. The adolescent mind thinks the highlight is when the hero blows up his own building. And that makes it a great book. When my brother first read "Gone With the Wind," the most exciting part to him was the burning of Atlanta. Of course he was only 16 when he read it and the ramifications of the Civil War hadn't been absorbed yet.

it's always been there... like the book at the library. this goes back to my original post that when "the message gets to the people".

i would further submit that if this movie had come out in 2007 sarah palin would be vice president. this is what i meant by "may/will change the face of american politics". this general concept is what democrat partiers are most afraid of.

If the movie were released in 2007, the Dems would have won by 60% across the board.

You weirdos really think you are in the center of reality instead floating on the whirlpool down the drain of extremism.

 

[gekaap]

what crap... but you're really cute...

In other words, you're unable to address the merits of my analysis of Rand's objectism. So since you can't logically deny what I've said, you will instead resort to ad hominems.

 

[washamericom]

what crap... but you're really cute...

In other words, you're unable to address the merits of my analysis of Rand's objectism. So since you can't logically deny what I've said, you will instead resort to ad hominems.

I waz talking to the clown...

no really, fitz just did and you set off a smokebomb

have you honestly read the book (either book) ? cuz u can't fake it. objectivism

 

[gekaap]

have you honestly read the book (either book) ? cuz u can't fake it.

Yep, picked it up a year ago, read all but the last couple chapters. Had put it down for a bit, moved in the meantime, and never got around to getting it unpacked. Earlier in the thread I gave a brief analysis on it, if you care to backtrack and take a look.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Same thing with The Fountainhead. The adolescent mind thinks the highlight is when the hero blows up his own building. And that makes it a great book. When my brother first read "Gone With the Wind," the most exciting part to him was the burning of Atlanta. Of course he was only 16 when he read it and the ramifications of the Civil War hadn't been absorbed yet.

it's always been there... like the book at the library. this goes back to my original post that when "the message gets to the people".

i would further submit that if this movie had come out in 2007 sarah palin would be vice president. this is what i meant by "may/will change the face of american politics". this general concept is what democrat partiers are most afraid of.

If the movie were released in 2007, the Dems would have won by 60% across the board.

You weirdos really think you are in the center of reality instead floating on the whirlpool down the drain of extremism.

You say that as if it makes you happy. You say that as if you are comparing the democrats to Jefferson Smith? I guess on both accounts you would.
Frank Capra the director and producer was a Republican

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nope, I am saying you flakes far, far, far to the right -- birthers, truthers, racists, militia, etc -- have no place suggesting you are mainstream. If the GOP displays you people as acceptable roles in a campaign, our party will get clobbered by the liberals, the leftists, the dems, the centrists, and responsible GOP. You are a danger to the Republic, period, bigrebnc, and the relegation of the Republican Party until we get rid of you as we did the McCarthyites, the Birchers, the extremists who called themselves falsely as Goldwaterites, etc.

 

[hipeter924]

have you honestly read the book (either book) ? cuz u can't fake it.

Yep, picked it up a year ago, read all but the last couple chapters. Had put it down for a bit, moved in the meantime, and never got around to getting it unpacked. Earlier in the thread I gave a brief analysis on it, if you care to backtrack and take a look.

Hate to break it to you...I read it...it put me to sleep. Its characters are so dull and it was very uninspiring, Anthem was the best of her works in my opinion.

 

[Big Fitz]

If pursuing one's happiness is the highest moral standard a person should live by, then anything becomes justified

Straw man. Pursuing ANYTHING to the point of distraction is just as bad.

Accepting this is necessary to hold to Rand's views

Obviously you don't understand Objectivism even a little bit. At no point does she come out against altruism or charity if it is given FREELY from one person to another. But charity beguiled out of someone by pity is just as bad as stealing by threat of violence or actual force. Can a person gain by giving charity freely? Absolutely! There is a certain sense of personal satisfaction with giving someone help to make their life better, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is all in what you value, and if you are in love with one thing to the distraction of all others, it is not evil per sey, but the consequences may be dire.

The idea that you must live for others to the deleterious affect on yourself because society demands it, is the true horror. Read The Fountainhead sometime, and educate yourself.

This then puts the less powerful in a place where they are forced to "pursue" their happiness only inasmuch as they are avoiding the wrath of the thief, who is of course the most moral a person can be. De facto, the less powerful person is working first for his master's happiness, and his own happiness is secondary. Which makes him less moral.

You're going to pull a muscle trying to shoehorn that crap into anyone's head. You're making so many assumptions in this statement, ladle out undefined 'morality', plus adding class warfare in while pushing your effort to foist a false premise on us.

Everyone works first for himself. They trade their labor for the means in which to survive. They negotiate a deal with those around them to do this. Either their energy is put towards directly supplying their needs or to garner a means of trade (currency) in which to buy what they need. You created the fantasy of master and slave here. It is a contract between employer and employee. Worker and land. Sorry, but you still aren't getting it.

Which makes him less moral. BUT, because his efforts are productive, his deeds are the most noble that any can be. Herein lies the contradiction.

Wrong, this is parasite talk. You just tried to reverse the argument and only flopped on your back like a philosophical tortoise, suffocating under your own busted argument. The worker works for himself through an employer or directly through the land and 'self employment'. If the worker cannot achieve enough success to survive, they must move on to a more profitable venue or again, starve. If they cannot handle the environment and conditions in which they work, they must move. If they cannot move, they must find a way to improve their lot in life and make it tolerable.

On another side of this die is the employer. They have reached a point of having too much work to do by themselves and need to find others to help him, and share in the profits (via wages and other compensation) to complete it for the betterment of themselves, their employees who join them in the partnership of employment and the customer who requires or at least wants what the employer and worker produce.

You assume the basic arrangement of employment is one where the employer takes labor from the employee unfairly. They are not slaves. They can leave, or negotiate a better compensation. Hence your premise is now dishonest.

How can one person's deeds be the most noble any deed can be, if he is of lesser moral quality than the the most moral man? And how can the most moral man's deeds be the least noble?

You are assuming things not in evidence here in regards to morality. Who's 'morality' are we talking about? To a parasite, the most essential need of the host (to survive long enough to dislodge them, or at the very least prevent them from becoming too numerous to kill them) is the highest evil. You do realize that ticks and mosquitoes and fleas in large enough numbers have killed animals right? I've seen episodes of animal planet, of dogs and cats so flea and tick infested it was no surprise they were near death or died once in care.

Economic parasites are no better, they just don't look as nasty or are as easy to see.

 

[Big Fitz]

have you honestly read the book (either book) ? cuz u can't fake it.

Yep, picked it up a year ago, read all but the last couple chapters. Had put it down for a bit, moved in the meantime, and never got around to getting it unpacked. Earlier in the thread I gave a brief analysis on it, if you care to backtrack and take a look.

Hate to break it to you...I read it...it put me to sleep. Its characters are so dull and it was very uninspiring, Anthem was the best of her works in my opinion.

Anthem is a short but hard read, and it's even more stilted that Atlas or Fountainhead. But it's an eye opener.

 

[Bern80]

And if unproductive people aren't subsidized by either the willing or the forced, they quickly starve and die. Somewhere before death, they cease being happy and either become unhappy productive people, or get the point that life involves work and come to terms with their lives and become happy productive people. Or die. that is still an option for those who refuse productivity and don't have a host in which to be a parasite on.

The most ungrateful person is a happy unproductive person. Their comfort is not theirs, and they know it can be taken from them once people figure out the scam. At least they admit that if they're intellectually honest. Most aren't.

So, your premise is flawed.

No, it's not flawed at all. If pursuing one's happiness is the highest moral standard a person should live by, then anything becomes justified, including being a fat, lazy slob who freeloads, even outright steals from others, who abuses others in less powerful positions of life. Accepting this is necessary to hold to Rand's views. This then puts the less powerful in a place where they are forced to "pursue" their happiness only inasmuch as they are avoiding the wrath of the thief, who is of course the most moral a person can be. De facto, the less powerful person is working first for his master's happiness, and his own happiness is secondary. Which makes him less moral. BUT, because his efforts are productive, his deeds are the most noble that any can be. Herein lies the contradiction. How can one person's deeds be the most noble any deed can be, if he is of lesser moral quality than the the most moral man? And how can the most moral man's deeds be the least noble?

And that's where everyone goes wrong. They think that since Rand advocated basically selfishness that every and all means for achieving it were justified, including stealing from others. Unfortunately that is a contradiction. Because Rand also held that no one else has the right to what someone else has worked for.

 

[gekaap]

And that's where everyone goes wrong. They think that since Rand advocated basically selfishness that every and all means for achieving it were justified, including stealing from others. Unfortunately that is a contradiction. Because Rand also held that no one else has the right to what someone else has worked for.

So it's a contradiction for me to follow Rand's ideas out all the way to the point where they contradict themselves, but Rand's ideas themselves do not constitute any contradiction?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope, I am saying you flakes far, far, far to the right -- birthers, truthers, racists, militia, etc -- have no place suggesting you are mainstream. If the GOP displays you people as acceptable roles in a campaign, our party will get clobbered by the liberals, the leftists, the dems, the centrists, and responsible GOP. You are a danger to the Republic, period, bigrebnc, and the relegation of the Republican Party until we get rid of you as we did the McCarthyites, the Birchers, the extremists who called themselves falsely as Goldwaterites, etc.

The original birthers were democrats, the truthers are democrats, you keep mentioning race so that makes you a racist. The militia has been approved by congress. Now for the mainstream BS. Its because of your mainstream tht gave the GOP McCain. It wasn't until Sarah Palin came along that his approval rating jumped up and made it a lot closer than it was originally going to be. I'm sure you would love to have another liberal republican running again.

 

[washamericom]

have you honestly read the book (either book) ? cuz u can't fake it.

Yep, picked it up a year ago, read all but the last couple chapters. Had put it down for a bit, moved in the meantime, and never got around to getting it unpacked. Earlier in the thread I gave a brief analysis on it, if you care to backtrack and take a look.

sallow already used this story, if you care to backtrack