Bashing Ayn Rand

[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?

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.

Race baiting.....a funny term. What does one catch when one race baits?

 

[Sallow]

Hateful? ha, she left 4 Americans to die --- and you call ME hateful...

SMH --- they are blind in their defense of the most corrupt admin. EVER!!

Reagan left 250 American men to be blown to bits.

Not a peep out of ya about that..

...and Reagan has WHAT to do with Hilary and Benghazi? Surely you aren't suggesting that because you feel that Reagan left 250 soldiers to be "blown to bits" (even though I don't), that justifies Hilary turning her head from Americans in Benghazi?

You don't really believe that mistakes made in the past are justification to make mistakes in the future, do you?

It's not about "justification", it's about precedent. Our government orders people into harm's way all the time. And for the most part, those people understand the risks and go anyway.

Now, somehow, you think this is something Unique..like you were born in 2009.

The country's been around ALOT longer than that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, one can be liberal and racist: look at poet here on the board.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I guess it depends on what a person's definition of "racist" is.

Regardless, both parties are damn well crammed with bigots.

.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Oh but you can, look at the poster called Poet on this board---very racist and very liberal. How about Sharpton, Jackson, Jackson-Lee. lots of liberal racists, swallow.

 

[LoneLaugher]

.

I guess it depends on what a person's definition of "racist" is.

Regardless, both parties are damn well crammed with bigots.

.

Hmmmmmm. That makes it sound like both parties are equally crammed with bigots. Makes it really hard for a non-bigoted person to find a party to call home.

 

[JakeStarkey]

.

I guess it depends on what a person's definition of "racist" is.

Regardless, both parties are damn well crammed with bigots.

.

Very much so.

 

[Redfish]

This message is hidden because LoneLaugher is on your ignore list.

 

[Redfish]

.

I guess it depends on what a person's definition of "racist" is.

Regardless, both parties are damn well crammed with bigots.

.

Very much so.

Yes, and sadly both parties are currently being defined by the radicals and bigots.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Radicals and bigots and reactionaries.

 

[Redfish]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sensationalization sells advertising, not factual reporting.

 

[Redfish]

Sensationalization sells advertising, not factual reporting.

factual reporting gets your phone records turned over to the DOJ. Ask James Rosen.

How dare he report on corruption in the govt

 

[Erand7899]

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.

All true. And let's not forget that the rich GET rich through the exploitation of labor. Now, I totally understand that statement SOUNDS communist in nature. I don't mean it to. It's just that businesses (and hence business OWNERS) make profit by paying less than the market value of the work their employees perform. So, at the very LEAST, the employer/employee relationship is symbiotic. Rand would have everyone believe that the worker is wholly dependent on the entrepreneur whereas the truth is that the entrepreneur is ALSO dependent on the workers for both the production of their products and to purchase their products. So, like I already said, the workers perform most, but not all, jobs at a rate of pay that is less than the value they help create. Otherwise, there could be no profit. (It's questionable whether upper management's high rate of pay qualifies in this manner). Then, the workers' disposable income puts them in the position to actually buy the products that are produced.

Now, in an Ayn Rand utopia, it's highly questionable whether John Gault could survive, let alone thrive in the business world she envisions.

Obviously, you have not read the book. John Galt is an intellectual superman who could not only survive, but thrive in any economic environment. The only question would be, would he want to, and in the book, he doesn't want to.

All entrepreneurs are not dependent upon workers, and workers are not exploited in most economic endeavors. A thriving enterprise is a combination of management, facilities, materials, and labor dedicated to the purpose of the enterprise. Few workers have the capital, knowledge, or facilities to produce on their own. Consequently, they sell their labor to others at the market rate for that labor. The economic risk for workers is unemployment. The economic risk for the entrepreneur is loss of capital, loss of reputation, and unemployment. Who is the exploited party?

 

[Redfish]

All true. And let's not forget that the rich GET rich through the exploitation of labor. Now, I totally understand that statements SOUNDS communist in nature. I don't mean it to. It's just that businesses (and hence business OWNERS) make profit by paying less than the market value of the work their employees perform. So, at the very LEAST, the employer/employee relationship is symbiotic. Rand would have everyone believe that the worker is wholly dependent of the entrepreneur whereas the truth is that the entrepreneur is ALSO dependent on the workers for both the production of their products and to purchase their products. So, like I already said, the workers perform most, but not all, jobs at a rate of pay that is less than the value they help create. Otherwise, there could be no profit. (It's questionable whether upper management's high rate of pay qualifies in this manner). Then, the workers' disposable income puts them in the position to actually buy the products that are produced.

Now, in an Ayn Rand utopia, it's highly questionable whether John Gault could survive, let alone thrive in the business world she envisions.

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.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

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.

 

[editec]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Redfish]

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.

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