"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics

[Uncensored2008]

I don't recall saying she was stupid.

That's because you cut & pasted words which were not your own that you didn't comprehend on a subject that you have no clue about.

 

[Bern80]

But what if this isn't true?

One person born into abject poverty with physical and mental impairments because their mother was a junkie, who grows up in a crime-ridden neighborhood without opportunity for quality education or healthcare and few options for gainful employment and another born a Rockefeller who goes to all the best schools and gets a cushy job at daddy's company, those individual's outcome are not at all predominately determined by their own behavior and choices. Those are extreme but certainly real examples and we see this phenomenon played out in less extremes every day. People are responsible for their own actions, but an incalculably important factor, particularly when it comes to the average person who is extremely wealthy or extremely poor, is simply what they were born into and had no choice over.

To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality and the way wealth and opportunity is dispersed in practice.

If everyone has the equal opportunity to succeed, then their eventual success or failure is predominately a result of their own choices and behavior, but that's not even remotely the case in the real world.

We're not talking about the people who can't. The mentally handicapped or whomever happens to be in a state where they truly can't survive on their own. We're talking about the people who won't.

You seem to be talking about anyone who doesn't agree with you. That's the problem with the rhetoric, you're given one example and have to throw in disclaimers. A fully realized philosophical system wouldn't require that kind of back-tracking.

It isn't backtracking. It should go without saying that it is unreasonable to expect something of someone who is literally incapable of accomplishing that something.

 

[editec]

FWIW I thought the plotline of AS was compelling when I read it, too.

How compelling was it?

Compelling enough for me to have waded through the hundreds of pages of what amounted to almost nothing but political screed.

Gotta hand it to Ayn for that, regardless of what you think of her political POV, she knew how to suck the reader into the plotline well enough to make them read though all the claptrap to discover who is John Galt?

 

[Immanuel]

I think it is a shame that many of the people who are bashing Ms. Rand's story don't appear to have actually read it.

Immie

All very well stated.

In fairness, I've found a lot on the right who bash Marx have never actually read him. (Of course, a lot on the left who promote Marx haven't read him ether.)

There is some difference in that though.

One need not read Marx to have been exposed to Communist theory as it is taught in schools all the time. On the other hand, one must have read Rand just to have an idea about what she thinks. Or I suppose, one might travel the internet as TM has done and cut and paste anti-Rand propaganda.

I have only read 2/3rds of "Atlas" which is a work of fiction. I can surmise what her political leanings were from those words, but I really don't know much about her.

From what I can tell, she is anti-communistic. Which would have made her a star in the days of Senator McCarthy and puts her on the level of Satan's second-in-command with most of today's "liberals". The nerve of anyone not believing that everyone should sacrifice their own happiness for the "good of the people"!

Funny thing is that Rand explains pretty well what might happen if everyone did sacrifice for the good of the state. Basically, she predicts that those people with a mind of their own, who risk their capital, their time and their efforts for the betterment of society will cease to take those risks and either disappear entirely or be swallowed up by society stifling progress completely.

Why, for instance, would the man who will eventually discover the cure for Cancer spend a lifetime of experimentation and utter risk of failure without hope of being rewarded in the future? One would like to think that that man did so for altruistic reasons, but in reality there would be little likelihood of him ever even undertaking the risks in the first place since there would be no reward for his risks. The costs alone would be prohibitive.

Ayn Rand lays out what she sees as the downfalls of Marxism. She does an excellent job of it too. For this, she is hated by the left most of whom can only come up with ridicules rants against her without having actually read her story. I'm sure some who believe in the virtues of Marxism might be able to rebut her treatise but it seems that most who attack her in this thread have not even read the book; yet know for a fact that she is evil incarnate. How do they know this? Why, the Liberals in today's society have told them that she is. Who would doubt any of those talking points?

Immie

 

[konradv]

I don't recall saying she was stupid.

That's because you cut & pasted words which were not your own that you didn't comprehend on a subject that you have no clue about.

So what? When did I say she was stupid? That's the charge you leveled. Are you back-tracking too, since you've been called out as a liar? That seems to always be the case with the Randites. They haven't really thought out the philosophy, except for the feel-good veneer and we're supposed to believe we're the ones that are stupid?!?!

 

[konradv]

I think it is a shame that many of the people who are bashing Ms. Rand's story don't appear to have actually read it.

Immie

All very well stated.

In fairness, I've found a lot on the right who bash Marx have never actually read him. (Of course, a lot on the left who promote Marx haven't read him ether.)

There is some difference in that though.

One need not read Marx to have been exposed to Communist theory as it is taught in schools all the time. On the other hand, one must have read Rand just to have an idea about what she thinks. Or I suppose, one might travel the internet as TM has done and cut and paste anti-Rand propaganda.

I have only read 2/3rds of "Atlas" which is a work of fiction. I can surmise what her political leanings were from those words, but I really don't know much about her.

From what I can tell, she is anti-communistic. Which would have made her a star in the days of Senator McCarthy and puts her on the level of Satan's second-in-command with most of today's "liberals". The nerve of anyone not believing that everyone should sacrifice their own happiness for the "good of the people"!

Funny thing is that Rand explains pretty well what might happen if everyone did sacrifice for the good of the state. Basically, she predicts that those people with a mind of their own, who risk their capital, their time and their efforts for the betterment of society will cease to take those risks and either disappear entirely or be swallowed up by society stifling progress completely.

Why, for instance, would the man who will eventually discover the cure for Cancer spend a lifetime of experimentation and utter risk of failure without hope of being rewarded in the future? One would like to think that that man did so for altruistic reasons, but in reality there would be little likelihood of him ever even undertaking the risks in the first place since there would be no reward for his risks. The costs alone would be prohibitive.

Ayn Rand lays out what she sees as the downfalls of Marxism. She does an excellent job of it too. For this, she is hated by the left most of whom can only come up with ridicules rants against her without having actually read her story. I'm sure some who believe in the virtues of Marxism might be able to rebut her treatise but it seems that most who attack her in this thread have not even read the book; yet know for a fact that she is evil incarnate. How do they know this? Why, the Liberals in today's society have told them that she is. Who would doubt any of those talking points?

Immie

You don't really seem to get the criticism. It's not that she was anti-Marxist, but that she was anti-society. Nobody does it alone, not even John Galt.

 

[Big Fitz]

It's not that she was anti-Marxist, but that she was anti-society.

Flat out wrong. A society of individuals defined the US from it's independence to the civil war. then that culture started being pushed west, out of the more 'civilized' areas that started getting more and more collectivist.

Society of individuals exist and function quite well. They just don't have the entitlement mentality and charity is given often and freely from individual and family to each other without a single government employee being involved.

But that requires a certain strength of character and forthrightness of thought that is utterly absent in almost all liberals.

Nobody does it alone, not even John Galt.

Read the book. You stuck your foot in your mouth again up to your hip.

 

[Immanuel]

All very well stated.

In fairness, I've found a lot on the right who bash Marx have never actually read him. (Of course, a lot on the left who promote Marx haven't read him ether.)

There is some difference in that though.

One need not read Marx to have been exposed to Communist theory as it is taught in schools all the time. On the other hand, one must have read Rand just to have an idea about what she thinks. Or I suppose, one might travel the internet as TM has done and cut and paste anti-Rand propaganda.

I have only read 2/3rds of "Atlas" which is a work of fiction. I can surmise what her political leanings were from those words, but I really don't know much about her.

From what I can tell, she is anti-communistic. Which would have made her a star in the days of Senator McCarthy and puts her on the level of Satan's second-in-command with most of today's "liberals". The nerve of anyone not believing that everyone should sacrifice their own happiness for the "good of the people"!

Funny thing is that Rand explains pretty well what might happen if everyone did sacrifice for the good of the state. Basically, she predicts that those people with a mind of their own, who risk their capital, their time and their efforts for the betterment of society will cease to take those risks and either disappear entirely or be swallowed up by society stifling progress completely.

Why, for instance, would the man who will eventually discover the cure for Cancer spend a lifetime of experimentation and utter risk of failure without hope of being rewarded in the future? One would like to think that that man did so for altruistic reasons, but in reality there would be little likelihood of him ever even undertaking the risks in the first place since there would be no reward for his risks. The costs alone would be prohibitive.

Ayn Rand lays out what she sees as the downfalls of Marxism. She does an excellent job of it too. For this, she is hated by the left most of whom can only come up with ridicules rants against her without having actually read her story. I'm sure some who believe in the virtues of Marxism might be able to rebut her treatise but it seems that most who attack her in this thread have not even read the book; yet know for a fact that she is evil incarnate. How do they know this? Why, the Liberals in today's society have told them that she is. Who would doubt any of those talking points?

Immie

You don't really seem to get the criticism. It's not that she was anti-Marxist, but that she was anti-society. Nobody does it alone, not even John Galt.

Anti-society? Really? Maybe it is you who doesn't get it?

She wasn't "Anti-society". She believed that Marxism was the downfall of society and in Atlas Shrugged she seems to have done a fine job of explaining why she believes that. In fact, she was more Pro-society than a lot of liberals if her viewpoint is correct. The Marxist Theory in her viewpoint leads to the destruction of society completely.

Basically she lays out the theory that Marxism turns society into a zombie... the living dead. If she is right then it is her detractors who are, in fact, "Anti-society" and she is the one who is on the side of the people. It is the Wesley Mouchs and James Taggarts of the world that have killed society, not the John Galts, Dagny Taggarts and Hank Reardons.

Spoiler alert:

In the story, I have just gotten to the part where Dagny has toured "Atlantis". It seems there is a society that is thriving despite the government's interference in the outside world. The society of "Atlantis" is alive and well. It is functioning as a society while life around them collapses.


So if you have read Atlas, who really is "Anti-society": Rand or the "looters" of today's society?

In other words, when you say, "You don't really seem to get the criticism. It's not that she was anti-Marxist, but that she was anti-society". I think your criticism is off base and extremely one-sided. She is by no means "Anti-society".

Immie

 

[Truthmatters]

The Ayn Rand Institute: Ayn Rand's Q & A on Libertarianism

 

[konradv]

We're not talking about the people who can't. The mentally handicapped or whomever happens to be in a state where they truly can't survive on their own. We're talking about the people who won't.

You seem to be talking about anyone who doesn't agree with you. That's the problem with the rhetoric, you're given one example and have to throw in disclaimers. A fully realized philosophical system wouldn't require that kind of back-tracking.

It isn't backtracking. It should go without saying that it is unreasonable to expect something of someone who is literally incapable of accomplishing that something.

It should also go without saying to no one does it alone. Unfortunately, the Randites seem to think that the entrepeneur did and owes society nothing. It's willful blindness that puts them in the same class as the Marxists, since both philosophies would require a basic change in human nature to work.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is some difference in that though.

One need not read Marx to have been exposed to Communist theory as it is taught in schools all the time. On the other hand, one must have read Rand just to have an idea about what she thinks. Or I suppose, one might travel the internet as TM has done and cut and paste anti-Rand propaganda.

Excellent summation of Objectivism.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So what? When did I say she was stupid?

Here:

Although David Kelley, Leonard Peikoff, and others now try to develop her thought into a complete philosophical system, nothing can hide the relative shallowness of her knowledge: She despised Immanuel Kant but then actually invokes "treating persons as ends rather than as means only" to explain the nature of morality. Perhaps she had picked that up without realizing it was from Kant [note].

I noted that this is cut&paste that you probably didn't grasp.

That's the charge you leveled. Are you back-tracking too, since you've been called out as a liar? That seems to always be the case with the Randites.

What is a "Randite?" Do you mean "Objectivist?"

I am not an Objectivist, my views track more closely with Murray Rothbard.

They haven't really thought out the philosophy, except for the feel-good veneer and we're supposed to believe we're the ones that are stupid?!?!

You have no idea one way or the other. You have zero grasp of what Rand promoted and attack because she is an enemy of the party, not because you have a rational or compelling argument against her philosophy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It should also go without saying to no one does it alone. Unfortunately, the Randites seem to think that the entrepeneur did and owes society nothing.

You speak from a position of abject ignorance.

Here is a clue, Rand viewed the situation such that industrialists give society more than any others, that priests and moochers talk a great deal but in fact give nothing to society. Industrialists give use microchips and flat screens and cars and all of the goods we depend on.

You give us your needs and your wants.

I prefer goods.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

In the story, I have just gotten to the part where Dagny has toured "Atlantis". It seems there is a society that is thriving despite the government's interference in the outside world. The society of "Atlantis" is alive and well. It is functioning as a society while life around them collapses.

You just described the co-operative commune that the "producers" created. Oh, the delicious irony! And it absolutely WAS NOT "government" that crashed the economy... it was your "producers" in the banks, mortgage lenders and on wall street... although, if you think about it, they don't really "produce" anything either. Government neglected to STOP the collapse caused by the shenanigans going on in the banks.

 

[Immanuel]

In the story, I have just gotten to the part where Dagny has toured "Atlantis". It seems there is a society that is thriving despite the government's interference in the outside world. The society of "Atlantis" is alive and well. It is functioning as a society while life around them collapses.

You just described the co-operative commune that the "producers" created. Oh, the delicious irony! And it absolutely WAS NOT "government" that crashed the economy... it was your "producers" in the banks, mortgage lenders and on wall street... although, if you think about it, they don't really "produce" anything either. Government neglected to STOP the collapse caused by the shenanigans going on in the banks.

Really? Those "producers" have set up their own society where everyone earns their keep, not a "commune".

In the story, it was the looters who crashed society by inserting themselves into political positions of power. Banks had nothing to do with it. None of the "looters" were bankers.

Maybe you haven't read the book?

Immie

 

[sparky]

Scott McDonanld, of the Ayn Rand institute, verified Ayn recieved both Medicare and SS under the name Ann O'Conner in her later years

seems the bastion of libertopia wasn't above gov handouts , eh?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Scott McDonanld, of the Ayn Rand institute, verified Ayn recieved both Medicare and SS under the name Ann O'Conner in her later years

seems the bastion of libertopia wasn't above gov handouts , eh?

Really?

Post a cite....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Scott McDonanld, of the Ayn Rand institute, verified Ayn recieved both Medicare and SS under the name Ann O'Conner in her later years

seems the bastion of libertopia wasn't above gov handouts , eh?

Really?

Post a cite....

It's in his book. Looks like you can pick it up pretty cheap.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/100-Voices-Oral-History-Rand/dp/0451231309]Amazon.com: 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand (9780451231307): Scott McConnell: Books[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's in his book. Looks like you can pick it up pretty cheap.

Amazon.com: 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand (9780451231307): Scott McConnell: Books

It's from a completely debunked claim by Evva Joan Pryor, who had been fired by Rand. McConnell is not much of a journalist.

"Atlas Shrugged" has sold more than 80,000 copies PER YEAR since 1957. The portrayal of Rand as destitute is laughably absurd.

Notice how the right never stoops to portraying Karl Marx as a wealthy industrialist at the end of his life?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It's in his book. Looks like you can pick it up pretty cheap.

Amazon.com: 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand (9780451231307): Scott McConnell: Books

It's from a completely debunked claim by Evva Joan Pryor, who had been fired by Rand. McConnell is not much of a journalist.

"Atlas Shrugged" has sold more than 80,000 copies PER YEAR since 1957. The portrayal of Rand as destitute is laughably absurd.

Notice how the right never stoops to portraying Karl Marx as a wealthy industrialist at the end of his life?

McConnell was Director of Communications for the Ayn Rand Institute. I think he probably knows what he's talking about.

And selling 80,000 books a year is around $35,000 a year. Not exactly a huge income.

And who cares about Karl Marx, except in conservative fairy land? No liberals I know idolize Karl Marx like you guys idolize Rand.