Bashing Ayn Rand

[bripat9643]

Rand was correct about one thing.

ATLAS is shrugging.

What do we think FREE TRADE and OFF SHORiNG CORPORATE PROFITS is all about?

Of course our RANDiANS don't leave to create their LIBERTOPIA like John Galt did.

Instead they continue to trade with the USA by importing their offshored goods and they insinuate themselves into our politics to insure tthat the laws make it possible for them to SHRUG.

Corporations still want the benefit of this superpower, and they have devised ways of seeing to it that they get this benefit on the cheap.

nothing being done by corporations today in the USA is illegal. They are in compliance with the laws set up by congress------------and congress has been controlled by liberal democrats for most of the last 75 years.

unless you can come up with something illegal being done by offshoring etc, then your issue is with liberals in congress, not corporations.

Liberals are like the serial killer who shouts "stop me before I kill again!"

 

[Old Rocks]

Rand was correct about one thing.

ATLAS is shrugging.

What do we think FREE TRADE and OFF SHORiNG CORPORATE PROFITS is all about?

Of course our RANDiANS don't leave to create their LIBERTOPIA like John Galt did.

Instead they continue to trade with the USA by importing their offshored goods and they insinuate themselves into our politics to insure tthat the laws make it possible for them to SHRUG.

Corporations still want the benefit of this superpower, and they have devised ways of seeing to it that they get this benefit on the cheap.

nothing being done by corporations today in the USA is illegal. They are in compliance with the laws set up by congress------------and congress has been controlled by liberal democrats for most of the last 75 years.

unless you can come up with something illegal being done by offshoring etc, then your issue is with liberals in congress, not corporations.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And there are no deviant priests, every Republican is a good family man that would never cheat on his wife, or engage in homosexual activities.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, there have been many. The American frontier societies were pretty well all libertarian societies, with few laws about anything. Settlers held their lands through their own might, and with the voluntary help of their neighbors. Mining communities had committies and miner's courts to ensure property rights, and punish those who committed foul acts such as murder and robbery.

Thank you for answering. Note that we live in a post-coal and -steam society.

To continue:

And the businessmen controlled the vigilante societies.

And minorities were run out of town and lynched.

And the Native Americans were deprived of their ancestral lands.

That is why the Rule of Man was supplanted by the Rule of Law.

and the KKK was made up almost exclusively of democrats. Lincoln was a republican. Republicans passed the civil rights act.

if you are going to recite history, at least do it accurately

Yep. And, as Johnson foresaw, with the passing of the Civil Rights Act, the parties completely switched places. The South became the GOP stronghold, the industrial north and the Northeast and West Coast, that of the Democrats.

Now it is the GOP that openly tries to prevent minorities from voting, that talks of women in a degrading manner, and insists they have no right to make decisions for themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

Rand was correct about one thing.

ATLAS is shrugging.

What do we think FREE TRADE and OFF SHORiNG CORPORATE PROFITS is all about?

Of course our RANDiANS don't leave to create their LIBERTOPIA like John Galt did.

Instead they continue to trade with the USA by importing their offshored goods and they insinuate themselves into our politics to insure tthat the laws make it possible for them to SHRUG.

Corporations still want the benefit of this superpower, and they have devised ways of seeing to it that they get this benefit on the cheap.

nothing being done by corporations today in the USA is illegal. They are in compliance with the laws set up by congress------------and congress has been controlled by liberal democrats for most of the last 75 years.

unless you can come up with something illegal being done by offshoring etc, then your issue is with liberals in congress, not corporations.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And there are no deviant priests, every Republican is a good family man that would never cheat on his wife, or engage in homosexual activities.

He should have said that nothing liberals complain about corporations doing is illegal. Of course there will always be business people who break the law, just as there will always be government bureaucrats and politicians who break the law.

 

[Mustang]

is that so? please explain how the following got rich by exploiting labor: Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Charlie Daniels, Bette Midler, Donald Trump, Bill Maher, Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Elvis Presley, Hugo Chavez, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi.

I could list 1000 names, but lets start with these.

What Rand and her character Galt believed is that everyone should earn whatever they have and that the govt should not impede business success by trying to make everything "equal". Equal means equally miserable--ask the people of north korea.

I think you understand that I'm referring to Ayn Rand's reference to workers in manufacturing and the production of products. Strictly speaking, that would include Gates, Trump, and Ford. As an economy becomes more diverse, it's not as cut and dry. For example, intellectual property rights create wealth, but ultimately a product has to be produced for sale. So, entertainers (like Elvis) who ultimately sell records, and authors (like Obama) who sell books still have to get their records and books produced.

Rand's idiotic notion of utopia would result in extreme inequality which would lead to social unrest, political upheaval, and ultimately, revolution. If you don't believe that, take a look at history. If revolution is the end result, then it couldn't have been a utopia, could it?

nice try, but you contradicted what you said earlier in your general comment that the rich get rich by exploiting workers. You did not say there were exceptions, you made the statement like it was all encompassing and true in every case of every rich person.

Most rich people are rich because they have a special talent or found a product to make and sell that people want or need. Success does not equal greed.

What Rand was saying is that everyone should earn what they have, and those who earn more through hard work or innovation should be able to keep what they earn.

Taggart transcontinental should not have been forced to give its most productive rail lines to owners who had not managed their own lines successfully. Hank Reardon should not have been forced by the govt to give his metal formula to his competitors.

What I said was in regard to the premise of the thread about Ayn Rand in her philosophy as expressed in her fictional books. The emphasis being fiction.

And I would take issue with your blanket statement of why most rich people are rich. Plenty of rich people are rich because of who they know, or who their parents or grandparents were, or who they've been able to exploit in some way. Hell, your earlier example of entertainers is a case in point. Col Tom Parker enriched himself because he represented Elvis. And The Beatles Publishing rights made Dick Lester incredibly rich without any special talent except being in the right place at the right time when the talented members of the band were all young and naive to the ways of business.

As for Ayn herself, I understand she ultimately went on gov't assistance in her later years. Apparently, she wasn't so married to her philosophy as to actually put it into practice in her own life. You know, as an example to others that her principles were more than just an intellectual dalliance?

 

[Doubletap]

I think you understand that I'm referring to Ayn Rand's reference to workers in manufacturing and the production of products. Strictly speaking, that would include Gates, Trump, and Ford. As an economy becomes more diverse, it's not as cut and dry. For example, intellectual property rights create wealth, but ultimately a product has to be produced for sale. So, entertainers (like Elvis) who ultimately sell records, and authors (like Obama) who sell books still have to get their records and books produced.

Rand's idiotic notion of utopia would result in extreme inequality which would lead to social unrest, political upheaval, and ultimately, revolution. If you don't believe that, take a look at history. If revolution is the end result, then it couldn't have been a utopia, could it?

nice try, but you contradicted what you said earlier in your general comment that the rich get rich by exploiting workers. You did not say there were exceptions, you made the statement like it was all encompassing and true in every case of every rich person.

Most rich people are rich because they have a special talent or found a product to make and sell that people want or need. Success does not equal greed.

What Rand was saying is that everyone should earn what they have, and those who earn more through hard work or innovation should be able to keep what they earn.

Taggart transcontinental should not have been forced to give its most productive rail lines to owners who had not managed their own lines successfully. Hank Reardon should not have been forced by the govt to give his metal formula to his competitors.

What I said was in regard to the premise of the thread about Ayn Rand in her philosophy as expressed in her fictional books. The emphasis being fiction.

And I would take issue with your blanket statement of why most rich people are rich. Plenty of rich people are rich because of who they know, or who their parents or grandparents were, or who they've been able to exploit in some way. Hell, your earlier example of entertainers is a case in point. Col Tom Parker enriched himself because he represented Elvis. And The Beatles Publishing rights made Dick Lester incredibly without any special talent except being in the right place at the right time when the talented members of the band were all young and naive to the ways of business.

As for Ayn herself, I understand she ultimately went on gov't assistance in her later years. Apparently, she wasn't so married to her philosophy as to actually put it into practice in her own life. You know, as an example to others that her principles were more than just an intellectual dalliance?

Rand collected SS benefits. She had paid in to the system all her life & was only getting back what was rightfully hers. There is no hypocrisy in that.

 

[Redfish]

Rand was correct about one thing.

ATLAS is shrugging.

What do we think FREE TRADE and OFF SHORiNG CORPORATE PROFITS is all about?

Of course our RANDiANS don't leave to create their LIBERTOPIA like John Galt did.

Instead they continue to trade with the USA by importing their offshored goods and they insinuate themselves into our politics to insure tthat the laws make it possible for them to SHRUG.

Corporations still want the benefit of this superpower, and they have devised ways of seeing to it that they get this benefit on the cheap.

nothing being done by corporations today in the USA is illegal. They are in compliance with the laws set up by congress------------and congress has been controlled by liberal democrats for most of the last 75 years.

unless you can come up with something illegal being done by offshoring etc, then your issue is with liberals in congress, not corporations.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And there are no deviant priests, every Republican is a good family man that would never cheat on his wife, or engage in homosexual activities.

of course corporations break the laws, the discussion was on offshoring and other things that you libs constantly rant about. Enron broke the law, Madoff broke the law. Where are they now? GE and GM are breaking no laws by building their stuff in china.

If you want to make that illegal, tell your congressmen.

 

[Redfish]

I think you understand that I'm referring to Ayn Rand's reference to workers in manufacturing and the production of products. Strictly speaking, that would include Gates, Trump, and Ford. As an economy becomes more diverse, it's not as cut and dry. For example, intellectual property rights create wealth, but ultimately a product has to be produced for sale. So, entertainers (like Elvis) who ultimately sell records, and authors (like Obama) who sell books still have to get their records and books produced.

Rand's idiotic notion of utopia would result in extreme inequality which would lead to social unrest, political upheaval, and ultimately, revolution. If you don't believe that, take a look at history. If revolution is the end result, then it couldn't have been a utopia, could it?

nice try, but you contradicted what you said earlier in your general comment that the rich get rich by exploiting workers. You did not say there were exceptions, you made the statement like it was all encompassing and true in every case of every rich person.

Most rich people are rich because they have a special talent or found a product to make and sell that people want or need. Success does not equal greed.

What Rand was saying is that everyone should earn what they have, and those who earn more through hard work or innovation should be able to keep what they earn.

Taggart transcontinental should not have been forced to give its most productive rail lines to owners who had not managed their own lines successfully. Hank Reardon should not have been forced by the govt to give his metal formula to his competitors.

What I said was in regard to the premise of the thread about Ayn Rand in her philosophy as expressed in her fictional books. The emphasis being fiction.

And I would take issue with your blanket statement of why most rich people are rich. Plenty of rich people are rich because of who they know, or who their parents or grandparents were, or who they've been able to exploit in some way. Hell, your earlier example of entertainers is a case in point. Col Tom Parker enriched himself because he represented Elvis. And The Beatles Publishing rights made Dick Lester incredibly without any special talent except being in the right place at the right time when the talented members of the band were all young and naive to the ways of business.

As for Ayn herself, I understand she ultimately went on gov't assistance in her later years. Apparently, she wasn't so married to her philosophy as to actually put it into practice in her own life. You know, as an example to others that her principles were more than just an intellectual dalliance?

OK, back to square one. you said that rich people got rich by exploiting labor. I proved that statement incorrect.

If you are now retracting that erroneous statement, then we are done.

 

[Redfish]

nothing being done by corporations today in the USA is illegal. They are in compliance with the laws set up by congress------------and congress has been controlled by liberal democrats for most of the last 75 years.

unless you can come up with something illegal being done by offshoring etc, then your issue is with liberals in congress, not corporations.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And there are no deviant priests, every Republican is a good family man that would never cheat on his wife, or engage in homosexual activities.

He should have said that nothing liberals complain about corporations doing is illegal. Of course there will always be business people who break the law, just as there will always be government bureaucrats and politicians who break the law.

He knew what I meant, like all liberals, he tried to take something out of context.

 

[Bfgrn]

Rand was correct about one thing.

ATLAS is shrugging.

What do we think FREE TRADE and OFF SHORiNG CORPORATE PROFITS is all about?

Of course our RANDiANS don't leave to create their LIBERTOPIA like John Galt did.

Instead they continue to trade with the USA by importing their offshored goods and they insinuate themselves into our politics to insure tthat the laws make it possible for them to SHRUG.

Corporations still want the benefit of this superpower, and they have devised ways of seeing to it that they get this benefit on the cheap.

nothing being done by corporations today in the USA is illegal. They are in compliance with the laws set up by congress------------and congress has been controlled by liberal democrats for most of the last 75 years.

unless you can come up with something illegal being done by offshoring etc, then your issue is with liberals in congress, not corporations.

The last 30 years have been controlled mostly by Republicans. Don't believe me? Ask these people.

"The excuse cannot be used that Congress massively increased Reagan's budget proposals. On the contrary, there was never much difference between Reagan's and Congress's budgets, and despite propaganda to the contrary, Reagan never proposed a cut in the total budget."
Murray N. Rothbard - former Dean of the Austrian School, an economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

"Grover Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down. His plan says you continue to add to the debt..."
Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.” Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
Charles Krauthammer

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thank you for answering. Note that we live in a post-coal and -steam society.

To continue:

And the businessmen controlled the vigilante societies.

And minorities were run out of town and lynched.

And the Native Americans were deprived of their ancestral lands.

That is why the Rule of Man was supplanted by the Rule of Law.

and the KKK was made up almost exclusively of democrats. Lincoln was a republican. Republicans passed the civil rights act.

if you are going to recite history, at least do it accurately

Yep. And, as Johnson foresaw, with the passing of the Civil Rights Act, the parties completely switched places. The South became the GOP stronghold, the industrial north and the Northeast and West Coast, that of the Democrats.

Now it is the GOP that openly tries to prevent minorities from voting, that talks of women in a degrading manner, and insists they have no right to make decisions for themselves.

And we are fighting a great battle in the GOP to remove the racists and the sexists and nativists from power. We have made strides against the racists, will pass the immigration bill, and accept the rulings of SCOTUS on DOMA and Prop 8.

The GOP is shedding the power of the far right and reaching to the center.

We in the mainstream GOP will nominate great Americans from the right of center, ignore the reactionaries and haters to our far right, and win the election of 2016, which will change the course of American history for the good.

 

[Mustang]

nice try, but you contradicted what you said earlier in your general comment that the rich get rich by exploiting workers. You did not say there were exceptions, you made the statement like it was all encompassing and true in every case of every rich person.

Most rich people are rich because they have a special talent or found a product to make and sell that people want or need. Success does not equal greed.

What Rand was saying is that everyone should earn what they have, and those who earn more through hard work or innovation should be able to keep what they earn.

Taggart transcontinental should not have been forced to give its most productive rail lines to owners who had not managed their own lines successfully. Hank Reardon should not have been forced by the govt to give his metal formula to his competitors.

What I said was in regard to the premise of the thread about Ayn Rand in her philosophy as expressed in her fictional books. The emphasis being fiction.

And I would take issue with your blanket statement of why most rich people are rich. Plenty of rich people are rich because of who they know, or who their parents or grandparents were, or who they've been able to exploit in some way. Hell, your earlier example of entertainers is a case in point. Col Tom Parker enriched himself because he represented Elvis. And The Beatles Publishing rights made Dick Lester incredibly without any special talent except being in the right place at the right time when the talented members of the band were all young and naive to the ways of business.

As for Ayn herself, I understand she ultimately went on gov't assistance in her later years. Apparently, she wasn't so married to her philosophy as to actually put it into practice in her own life. You know, as an example to others that her principles were more than just an intellectual dalliance?

OK, back to square one. you said that rich people got rich by exploiting labor. I proved that statement incorrect.

If you are now retracting that erroneous statement, then we are done.

Everyone understands how capitalism works. Profit is dependent on charging more than the cost of production. That includes labor cost. In other words, you have to pay someone less than the value of their work if you want to make a profit. This is not shocking. It's just the way capitalism works.

But let's get back to the entertainment industry for a minute. Record companies ROUTINELY exploited their talent, paying their artists pennies on the dollar per record (and now per CD) sold. You would think that the artists could have held out for better deals, but they were relatively powerless within the business relationship unless or until they were established artists (and older and wiser, as well).

 

[JakeStarkey]

What is shocking when capitalism exploits workers, as in Bangladesh, or in the US before and after 1900.

We will never permit that era in America again, ever.

 

[Bfgrn]

and the KKK was made up almost exclusively of democrats. Lincoln was a republican. Republicans passed the civil rights act.

if you are going to recite history, at least do it accurately

Yep. And, as Johnson foresaw, with the passing of the Civil Rights Act, the parties completely switched places. The South became the GOP stronghold, the industrial north and the Northeast and West Coast, that of the Democrats.

Now it is the GOP that openly tries to prevent minorities from voting, that talks of women in a degrading manner, and insists they have no right to make decisions for themselves.

And we are fighting a great battle in the GOP to remove the racists and the sexists and nativists from power. We have made strides against the racists, will pass the immigration bill, and accept the rulings of SCOTUS on DOMA and Prop 8.

The GOP is shedding the power of the far right and reaching to the center.

We in the mainstream GOP will nominate great Americans from the right of center, ignore the reactionaries and haters to our far right, and win the election of 2016, which will change the course of American history for the good.

The reactionaries and haters to our far right control the party through the primaries. You're only viable option is to join with blue dog Democrats.

 

[Mustang]

nice try, but you contradicted what you said earlier in your general comment that the rich get rich by exploiting workers. You did not say there were exceptions, you made the statement like it was all encompassing and true in every case of every rich person.

Most rich people are rich because they have a special talent or found a product to make and sell that people want or need. Success does not equal greed.

What Rand was saying is that everyone should earn what they have, and those who earn more through hard work or innovation should be able to keep what they earn.

Taggart transcontinental should not have been forced to give its most productive rail lines to owners who had not managed their own lines successfully. Hank Reardon should not have been forced by the govt to give his metal formula to his competitors.

What I said was in regard to the premise of the thread about Ayn Rand in her philosophy as expressed in her fictional books. The emphasis being fiction.

And I would take issue with your blanket statement of why most rich people are rich. Plenty of rich people are rich because of who they know, or who their parents or grandparents were, or who they've been able to exploit in some way. Hell, your earlier example of entertainers is a case in point. Col Tom Parker enriched himself because he represented Elvis. And The Beatles Publishing rights made Dick Lester incredibly without any special talent except being in the right place at the right time when the talented members of the band were all young and naive to the ways of business.

As for Ayn herself, I understand she ultimately went on gov't assistance in her later years. Apparently, she wasn't so married to her philosophy as to actually put it into practice in her own life. You know, as an example to others that her principles were more than just an intellectual dalliance?

Rand collected SS benefits. She had paid in to the system all her life & was only getting back what was rightfully hers. There is no hypocrisy in that.

AND Medicare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yep. And, as Johnson foresaw, with the passing of the Civil Rights Act, the parties completely switched places. The South became the GOP stronghold, the industrial north and the Northeast and West Coast, that of the Democrats.

Now it is the GOP that openly tries to prevent minorities from voting, that talks of women in a degrading manner, and insists they have no right to make decisions for themselves.

And we are fighting a great battle in the GOP to remove the racists and the sexists and nativists from power. We have made strides against the racists, will pass the immigration bill, and accept the rulings of SCOTUS on DOMA and Prop 8.

The GOP is shedding the power of the far right and reaching to the center.

We in the mainstream GOP will nominate great Americans from the right of center, ignore the reactionaries and haters to our far right, and win the election of 2016, which will change the course of American history for the good.

The reactionaries and haters to our far right control the party through the primaries. You're only viable option is to join with blue dog Democrats.

Oh, that is why they nominated our presidential candidates in the last two elections? Oh, that is why they won the Senate; oh, that's right they cost us the majority twice.

Watch, there will be no reactionaries and haters on our presidential, vice presidential, and senatorial tickets in 2016. The blue dogs will do as they will in the Dems, and we will finish off the reactionary and hater RINOs over the next three years in our primaries.

 

[Bfgrn]

And we are fighting a great battle in the GOP to remove the racists and the sexists and nativists from power. We have made strides against the racists, will pass the immigration bill, and accept the rulings of SCOTUS on DOMA and Prop 8.

The GOP is shedding the power of the far right and reaching to the center.

We in the mainstream GOP will nominate great Americans from the right of center, ignore the reactionaries and haters to our far right, and win the election of 2016, which will change the course of American history for the good.

The reactionaries and haters to our far right control the party through the primaries. You're only viable option is to join with blue dog Democrats.

Oh, that is why they nominated our presidential candidates in the last two elections? Oh, that is why they won the Senate; oh, that's right they cost us the majority twice.

Watch, there will be no reactionaries and haters on our presidential, vice presidential, and senatorial tickets in 2016. The blue dogs will do as they will in the Dems, and we will finish off the reactionary and hater RINOs over the next three years in our primaries.

Good luck, because they are not going away or shrinking. They are fed raw meat propaganda 24/7 on Faux News, Breitbart, Malkin, Rush Limbaugh and the slew of hate radio goons.

 

[Mustang]

What is shocking when capitalism exploits workers, as in Bangladesh, or in the US before and after 1900.

We will never permit that era in America again, ever.

No? I just saw an article in the paper yesterday that stated that 1/4 of all American workers have no paid time off from work during the year. Apparently, there's no law that mandates it like in other Western countries. I don't know how long that 25% figure has been a reality. But, since there is no law that mandates paid vacation or holiday time in this country, I guess it's just a matter of time until more companies choose to change their new employee hiring contracts in order to take advantage of the lack of any legal requirement to provide a benefit they had previously automatically included out of tradition. People might find that they'll still get a vacation. They just won't get paid during their time off from work -- except for the executives, of course.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reactionaries and haters to our far right control the party through the primaries. You're only viable option is to join with blue dog Democrats.

Oh, that is why they nominated our presidential candidates in the last two elections? Oh, that is why they won the Senate; oh, that's right they cost us the majority twice.

Watch, there will be no reactionaries and haters on our presidential, vice presidential, and senatorial tickets in 2016. The blue dogs will do as they will in the Dems, and we will finish off the reactionary and hater RINOs over the next three years in our primaries.

Good luck, because they are not going away or shrinking. They are fed raw meat propaganda 24/7 on Faux News, Breitbart, Malkin, Rush Limbaugh and the slew of hate radio goons.

Yup, they are shrinking in numbers and influence.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Radicals and bigots and reactionaries.

Yes, and why do those of us in the middle let that happen? I blame the media because they focus on the fringers because it makes better programming.

Ya hear that! Redfish thinks he's in the middle!