Bashing Ayn Rand

[Bfgrn]

Ayn Rand accurately predicted where this country was going in Atlas Shrugged. She accurately showed how liberal governments destroy countries and economies.

Like her or hate her------she was right.

see my sig.

You folks have a lot of nerve, or ignorance. Liberals did not destroy this country. Reagan, the guy who switched the federal government from what he critically called, a “tax and spend” policy, to a “borrow and spend” policy and put America on the credit card did. Liberals paid CASH. Reagan tripled the national debt. It had taken the United States more than 200 years to accumulate the first $1 trillion of national debt, it took only five years under Reagan to add the second one trillion dollars to the debt. By the end of the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush administrations, the national debt had quadrupled to $4 trillion!


"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.

“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

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals totally destroyed this country to the point where it is irrevocably divided. Rand's belief or non belief in religion did not and do not negate the philosophical principles upon which her work is based. Those principles pre date Christianity by hundreds of years. The only purpose if bringing up Rand's atheism is to avoid discussion of her work because her detractors either never read her books or didn't understand them if they did read them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This country is not "irrevocably divided." The 73% who are unhappy with our direction are overwhelmingly the right of center to the left of center, and they despise the far left and the reactionary right. Rand is irrelevant to the future of America.

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberals totally destroyed this country to the point where it is irrevocably divided. Rand's belief or non belief in religion did not and do not negate the philosophical principles upon which her work is based. Those principles pre date Christianity by hundreds of years. The only purpose if bringing up Rand's atheism is to avoid discussion of her work because her detractors either never read her books or didn't understand them if they did read them.

Ayn describes her superman...William Hickman a serial killer.

"Other people have no right, no hold, no interest or influence on him. And this is not affected or chosen -- it's inborn, absolute, it can't be changed, he has 'no organ' to be otherwise. In this respect, he has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.' "

"He shows how impossible it is for a genuinely beautiful soul to succeed at present, for in all [aspects of] modern life, one has to be a hypocrite, to bend and tolerate. This boy wanted to command and smash away things and people he didn't approve of."

"And when we look at the other side of it -- there is a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy turned into a purposeless monster. By whom? By what? Is it not by that very society that is now yelling so virtuously in its role of innocent victim? He had a brilliant mind, a romantic, adventurous, impatient soul and a straight, uncompromising, proud character. What had society to offer him? A wretched, insane family as the ideal home, a Y.M.C.A. club as social honor, and a bank-page job as ambition and career"

William Edward Hickman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ayn Rand's SUPERMAN is a sociopathic personality with no capacity to empathize or sympathize.

 

[FA_Q2]

snip

Really cheap, simplistic writing by one sick puppy.

If you read that quote, you have read the whole book. Seriously. I just saved you weeks of torture.

Just because you did not like the book does not mean others are going to view it with the same biases that you have. You have failed to understand what the entire point of that portion of the book was about anyway as it had nothing to do with ‘executions’ at all.

I will say that the relationships in the book could have had some MAJOR tweaking. She allows far to much of her objectivism into the relationships that Dagny has and although some of what she is getting at is fine, she repeats it over and over and over. It only needed to be said once.

Atlas Shrugged should have been a short story. It is by far the most repetitive drudgery ever written.

I would wager most of the alleged conservatives who fly her banner don't even realize she was a hardcore atheist objectivist, and that objectivism misses an understanding of human nature by a country mile.

I think that most actually do as you do not need to take the beliefs and philosophies of anyone in their totality. There is nothing that says you cannot agree with some of Rand’s philosophical views on individualism without rejecting other views on objectivism. Her philosophies were interrelated but certainly not interdependent.

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?

The real problem here is that you want to take her philosophy all the way in a pure form. Such does not work with ANY philosophy. There is not a single system out there that can exist in a pure form. That does not mean that we do not express our underlying philosophical beliefs in that manner. As pure capitalism cannot exist, it is a simple impossibility; neither can Rand’s ‘utopia.’ That does not make the underlying philosophy bad.

The great majority of libertarians are not racists, just caught up in a lack of basic understanding of human nature

True.

Libertarians are, for the most part, naïve reactionaries who maintain an unrealistic, idealized fantasy of an America that never really existed.

Liberals and Conservatives here that try and categorize libertarians almost universally have no concept whatsoever of what a libertarian believes in.

It is not the libertarians that are caught up in misunderstanding human nature, it is you that are caught un in misunderstanding what a libertarian even stands for.

The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, abundantly in evidence here, is that her critics must distort everything she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility, NOT self-indulgence; & a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends.

How many critics would dare honestly state these ideas and say, " . . .and that's what I reject"?

^ truth.

This is the jist of it. Here we have people attacking Rand based on her ‘utopia.’ A system that is acknowledged as not possible as no utopia is possible and no system can be practiced in it pure form. Further attacks on here character can be seen that have essentially ZERO to do with anything. No one idealizes Rand the person, I don’t care what she was like. Her ideas are worthy of thought though. Lastly, you have people here attacking her because of some of here extreme views in objectivism as though one extreme example of view invalidates anything that she ever professed. In the end, very little of substance actually is attacked.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because there is very little of substance to address with Rand.

A question for true libertarians. Can you name any true libertarian societies without twisting the definition? If so, do so, please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I doubt that AR was the second coming of Christian principles in America, whether politically or culturally.

For heaven's sake.

You are the first suggesting that anyone would think so.

Your nonsense explodes at the thought.

 

[Esmeralda]

As an author of fiction, she was mediocre at best.
As a political/social philosopher...I think of her along the same lines as I do P.T. Barnum...her presence deflected notice (and still does) from greater thinkers/commentators...Chodorov, Nock, Mencken, Lane, Garret, Dos Passos and others.

I couldn't agree more on both counts. She is not an accomplished fiction writer but, rather, someone who appeals to the adolescent mentality in regards to her prose and her philosophy.

 

[Esmeralda]

Atlas Shrugged should have been a short story. It is by far the most repetitive drudgery ever written.

I would wager most of the alleged conservatives who fly her banner don't even realize she was a hardcore atheist objectivist, and that objectivism misses an understanding of human nature by a country mile.

I agree that Atlas Shrugged is a difficult read, thats probably why most liberals who claim to know what its about have never read it.

Why are liberals unable to think logically?

Atlas Shrugged is not difficult to read; I read it when I was a teenager. A lot of people don't read fiction. I suspect many, most, conservatives have also not read it.

As far as your statement that liberals are unable to think logically, that statement is a perfect example of not thinking logically.

Sweeping Generalization Fallacy
Explanation
A sweeping generalization applies a general statement too broadly. If one takes a general rule, and applies it to a case to which, due to the specific features of the case, the rule does not apply, then one commits the sweeping generalization fallacy

How ironic that in accusing others of not thinking logically, you display your own inability to do so, and you are completely unaware of it. Too funny

 

[FA_Q2]

It is not possible to read posts from either of them and not know that they are conservative and racist. Your whinefest theory has huge holes in it. Your tent is filled with the types of people that you claim to have never met.

You need to pay closer attention.

You are full of it...

...and even if they do make racist posts --- as I stated earlier, they most likely make them just to get you acting like a fool... seems that it works. hahahaha!!!

You ever ask them their views on racism? or, just assume they are racists because you can successfully race-bait them?? lol

Liberal sheeple --- what sad creatures you are!

Yes. I have asked. Yidnar embraces it. Mathew......a little less cavalier....but he won't deny it.

You are wrong. Admit it. Have you enough integrity?

Interesting that you want to paint republicans/conservatives with a wide ass brush because you are able to come up with a few names of idiots around here. Are you sure that you want to do that because I can just as quickly slap democrats with a racist label with the bullshit that Black_Label has posted.

All parties have idiots in them BUT republicans certainly do NOT stand for the bullshit that you are trying to lay at their feet.

 

[Dot Com]

pretty creepy/scary that the current Repub chairman of the budget committee is a Rand acolyte even though he lied and said he wasn't to the catholic church after they questioned his budget showering tax cuts on the wealthy
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/418458/august-29-2012/ayn-rand---paul-ryan

Ayn Rand & Paul Ryan
Just because Paul Ryan got into politics because of Ayn Rand, and requires his staff to read her, doesn't mean he likes her.

 

[Obamanation]

It is not possible to read posts from either of them and not know that they are conservative and racist. Your whinefest theory has huge holes in it. Your tent is filled with the types of people that you claim to have never met.

You need to pay closer attention.

You are full of it...

...and even if they do make racist posts --- as I stated earlier, they most likely make them just to get you acting like a fool... seems that it works. hahahaha!!!

You ever ask them their views on racism? or, just assume they are racists because you can successfully race-bait them?? lol

Liberal sheeple --- what sad creatures you are!

Yes. I have asked. Yidnar embraces it. Mathew......a little less cavalier....but he won't deny it.

You are wrong. Admit it. Have you enough integrity?

LL - even if they are racist - racists are hardly the heart of the conservative culture. Are you going to pretend that race baiting isn't prevalent among many on the left? MSNBC can't go an hour without creating a fantasy racism charge against somebody!!

Not trying to turn the tables here, just trying to illustrate that just because there are still some issues of race in America it's not REALLY fair to tie racism to conservatives as the vast majority of us despise racism as much as anyone...

Personally, I enjoy people of different race, background, and culture. In my church there are people who are black, asian, marshallese, hispanic, along with whites. I grew up in Indianapolis and the school I went to was 70% black people.

The one thing I don't tolerate, and my friends know this, is using race or even class as an excuse. I lived 4 people in a one BR duplex with a hooker living next door. I made the choice to become responsible and accountable for my choices and my actions. Let me tell you, there are no "programs" for inner-city white boys from broken families even if their mother is dying of Cancer. People are where they are becuase they CHOOSE to be there.

...and like I was saying in another thread it's not conservatives who feel the need to put everyone in a box based on color, sex, sexual preference, or any other criteria.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Rand called upon the readers of her newsletter to oppose then-Governor Ronald Reagan's Presidential aspirations:

I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word -- i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose -- see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion.
Ayn Rand

As a matter of fact Rand loathed government entitlements to business, aka voodoo economics, aka, supply side economics, aka Reaganomics. It is amusing that the nutball gaggle equate Rand with Reagan, when Rand idealized icon-driven corporations like Microsoft and Apple whose enemies were the mindless numbers-drven bloodless entities (in her time like ATT, Merrill Lynch, Government Sachs, and Bank of Murka) buying political-influence from people like the people around Reagan.

Rand never contemplated icon-driven corporations becoming big enough to commingle with anonymous bloodless entities in a sea of corporate avarice buying federal influence AGAINST the individual. Instead Rand viewed icon-driven "individualist" corporations as fighting the perpetual battle against government meddling and cultural sloth.

Even more amusing, many here support corporations buying influence and condemn government in general rather than influence peddling politicians like Coburn, Feinstein, Boehner, Pelosi, Reid and McConnell.

It is the zeal with which white trash praise their subjugaters that suggests something more is going on here. Maybe Monsanto has been able to sell some kind of French-Italian hormone to mix into twinkies and other popular nutball snacks?

 

[Obamanation]

Rand called upon the readers of her newsletter to oppose then-Governor Ronald Reagan's Presidential aspirations:

I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word -- i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose -- see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion.
Ayn Rand

As a matter of fact Rand loathed government entitlements to business, aka voodoo economics, aka, supply side economics, aka Reaganomics. It is amusing that the nutball gaggle equate Rand with Reagan, when Rand idealized icon-driven corporations like Microsoft and Apple whose enemies were the mindless numbers-drven bloodless entities (in her time like ATT, Merrill Lynch, Government Sachs, and Bank of Murka) buying political-influence from people like the people around Reagan.

Rand never contemplated icon-driven corporations becoming big enough to commingle with anonymous bloodless entities in a sea of corporate avarice buying federal influence AGAINST the individual. Instead Rand viewed icon-driven "individualist" corporations as fighting the perpetual battle against government meddling and cultural sloth.

Even more amusing, many here support corporations buying influence and condemn government in general rather than influence peddling politicians like Coburn, Feinstein, Boehner, Pelosi, Reid and McConnell.

It is the zeal with which white trash praise their subjugaters that suggests something more is going on here. Maybe Monsanto has been able to sell some kind of French-Italian hormone to mix into twinkies and other popular nutball snacks?

Good read...

One thing -- who supports corporations buying political influence?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Supply side economics = Blackhawks season tickets.

 

[editec]

Rand makes bout as much sense as every other UTOPIAN.

She's the MARX of the right.

Like Marx she really did not understand human nature.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Rand called upon the readers of her newsletter to oppose then-Governor Ronald Reagan's Presidential aspirations:

I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word -- i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose -- see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion.
Ayn Rand

As a matter of fact Rand loathed government entitlements to business, aka voodoo economics, aka, supply side economics, aka Reaganomics. It is amusing that the nutball gaggle equate Rand with Reagan, when Rand idealized icon-driven corporations like Microsoft and Apple whose enemies were the mindless numbers-drven bloodless entities (in her time like ATT, Merrill Lynch, Government Sachs, and Bank of Murka) buying political-influence from people like the people around Reagan.

Rand never contemplated icon-driven corporations becoming big enough to commingle with anonymous bloodless entities in a sea of corporate avarice buying federal influence AGAINST the individual. Instead Rand viewed icon-driven "individualist" corporations as fighting the perpetual battle against government meddling and cultural sloth.

Even more amusing, many here support corporations buying influence and condemn government in general rather than influence peddling politicians like Coburn, Feinstein, Boehner, Pelosi, Reid and McConnell.

It is the zeal with which white trash praise their subjugaters that suggests something more is going on here. Maybe Monsanto has been able to sell some kind of French-Italian hormone to mix into twinkies and other popular nutball snacks?

Good read...

One thing -- who supports corporations buying political influence?

Any number of posters here. Maybe some will self-identify here now?

As a factual matter, everyone buying from big boxes or banking at TBTF banks, among other choices we make, supports influence buying, while everyone voting for major party candidates hooked to the military industrial complex, finance, and/or government unions supports influence peddling.

Nothing can change until a third party achieves critical mass opposing bloodless paper entities, aka corporations, having the same legal rights as natural born citizens whose ancestors, relatives and friends populate Arlington and similar cemetaries defending both natural born citizens and paper entities.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You are full of it...

...and even if they do make racist posts --- as I stated earlier, they most likely make them just to get you acting like a fool... seems that it works. hahahaha!!!

You ever ask them their views on racism? or, just assume they are racists because you can successfully race-bait them?? lol

Liberal sheeple --- what sad creatures you are!

Yes. I have asked. Yidnar embraces it. Mathew......a little less cavalier....but he won't deny it.

You are wrong. Admit it. Have you enough integrity?

Interesting that you want to paint republicans/conservatives with a wide ass brush because you are able to come up with a few names of idiots around here. Are you sure that you want to do that because I can just as quickly slap democrats with a racist label with the bullshit that Black_Label has posted.

All parties have idiots in them BUT republicans certainly do NOT stand for the bullshit that you are trying to lay at their feet.

If you say you have never met a racist conservative...."O" claimed, I will point one or two out to you. I did not generalize.....I supplied evidence.

I have never claimed that no liberals are racist. Have I? I have also never claimed that all conservatives are racist.

 

[Sallow]

We could certainly use a philosopher of Rand's caliber now. It's doubtful that it would make an impression on totalitarian liberals but the rest of us would benefit.

What is Objectivism? | Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and Individualism | The Atlas Society

Ayn Rand was a philosopher who studied the works of the philosophers that have gone before. It might not be possible to understand her work without a passing knowledge of past philosophers. Particularly the philosophies of utopian constructs. That's why so many find that her work makes no sense. Once someone has a basic understanding of Plato's Republic, Hobbes' Leviathan and More's Utopia, Rand's writings become clear and prophetic. She just updated the findings of those philosophies to the industrial society. Her genius is revealed.

Debating or discussing Ayn Rand with those who are not familiar with the foundation of her opinions is like an astronomer trying to make a savage understand the stars . It can be done. It just shouldn't be done because of the futility in the attempt.

Plato's Republic?

Really?

 

[Sallow]

Yes. I have asked. Yidnar embraces it. Mathew......a little less cavalier....but he won't deny it.

You are wrong. Admit it. Have you enough integrity?

Interesting that you want to paint republicans/conservatives with a wide ass brush because you are able to come up with a few names of idiots around here. Are you sure that you want to do that because I can just as quickly slap democrats with a racist label with the bullshit that Black_Label has posted.

All parties have idiots in them BUT republicans certainly do NOT stand for the bullshit that you are trying to lay at their feet.

If you say you have never met a racist conservative...."O" claimed, I will point one or two out to you. I did not generalize.....I supplied evidence.

I have never claimed that no liberals are racist. Have I? I have also never claimed that all conservatives are racist.

You cannot be liberal and racist.

Unless for some reason the dictionary meaning of the word has changed.

You can of course be, left wing and racist.