How Is Ayn Rand Still A Thing?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So why is she "still a thing?" She's a useful political tool for Democrats to use against Republicans. That's why she's still a thing.

Only as much as women on welfare, peace activists, environmentalists, feminists, and vegetarians have been useful political tools for Right-Wingers to use against Democrats.

So get down from your high horse.

What high horse? Republicans have their useful, or useless, boogeymen as well. Bill Ayers comes to mind. This thread, however, is about Ayn Rand.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Regardless, Ayn Rand was not an anarchist, which assumes that she saw a role for the state.

Yes, the most limited role imaginable. Defense and law enforcement and due process.

And she probably wasn't all that worried about due process. I'm betting she didn't care if poor people had lawyers in court.

Again, I'm thinking she didn't mind roads being handled by the free market.

A limited role is still a role, and thus implies that she did not support the free market absolutely.

So, do libertarians see a role for the government?

Some do, some don't.

And you?

Don't

 

[Flopper]

I am a libertarian and I have never read Ayn Rand. She was a plagiarist who constantly derided libertarians for "stealing" her ideas and giving her no credit. She may have been a general supporter of free markets, which is great, but she was no friend to libertarians or libertarian ideas. Especially when she essentially supported genocide against Palestinians because they weren't "civilized" like the Israelis.

So why is she "still a thing?" She's a useful political tool for Democrats to use against Republicans. That's why she's still a thing.

Well, perhaps you should read her before commenting. She was an absolute supporter of free markets.

That she was. However, her absurd philosophy that got sold to the world of business and government, has created a world of havoc in the United States. Laissez-Faire capitalism just doesn't work. It's a utopia fantasy and like all utopias, it cannot actually exist. Just like Marxism, in the real world, produced the Soviet system in Russia, the real world implementation of laissez-faire capitalism, led by Rand-disciple Greenspan, produced the great recession.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am a libertarian and I have never read Ayn Rand. She was a plagiarist who constantly derided libertarians for "stealing" her ideas and giving her no credit. She may have been a general supporter of free markets, which is great, but she was no friend to libertarians or libertarian ideas. Especially when she essentially supported genocide against Palestinians because they weren't "civilized" like the Israelis.

So why is she "still a thing?" She's a useful political tool for Democrats to use against Republicans. That's why she's still a thing.

Well, perhaps you should read her before commenting. She was an absolute supporter of free markets.

That she was. However, her absurd philosophy that got sold to the world of business and government, has created a world of havoc in the United States. Laissez-Faire capitalism just doesn't work. It's a utopia fantasy and like all utopias, it cannot actually exist. Just like Marxism, in the real world, produced the Soviet system in Russia, the real world implementation of laissez-faire capitalism, led by Rand-disciple Greenspan, produced the great recession.

Not even close.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Hard to believe there are still people who take Ayn Rand seriously

You do understand, don't you, that for your type of comment to be considered valuable people have to first actually respect your opinion.

Try a different approach without the inherent flaw of this comment.

 

[Rikurzhen]

If only we had more redistribution of wealth through our benevolent and loving Big Government..........the lazy and stupid should not be penalized!

Never fear, idiot leftists are on the job:

When it comes to hiring staff, there are plenty of legal pitfalls employers need to watch out for these days.

So recruitment agency boss Nicole Mamo was especially careful to ensure her advert for hospital workers did not offend on grounds of race, age or sexual orientation.

However, she hadn't reckoned on discriminating against a wholly different section of the community - the completely useless.

When she ran the ad past a job centre, she was told she couldn't ask for 'reliable' and 'hard-working' applicants because it could be offensive to unreliable people.​

 

[whitehall]

How does an author who was active in the 30's and 40's qualify for the current events forum?

 

[Rikurzhen]

IF they are fans, do they bring her up as much as you do?

Who said she wasn't relevant? You asked a question, I answered it.

I didn't ask a question. Try to pay attention between spews.

Of course they won't bring her up. While she is their guiding ideological light, they know that the rest of the country thinks she's batshit crazy. They don't want to highlight that while pushing her agenda of selfishness.

Yes you did ask a question. Look at your thread title dummy.

OK.

She's not a thing.

Is that because she's been discredited?

You tell me. This is your psychotic rant.

Yes. She's been discredited.

I just wanted to write that I much preferred your old avatar, the fat stupid looking guy wearing antenna on his head, because that way your avatar and the quality of your writing matched. This new avatar creates a mismatch and that's disconcerting to me.

 

[Flopper]

How does an author who was active in the 30's and 40's qualify for the current events forum?

House Minority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Monday accused Republicans of following author Ayn Rand’s advice that “compromise is always evil,” and warned that letting Republicans take over Congress would only lead to more gridlock and partisanship.
Steny Hoyer slams Ayn Rand 8216 Compromise is not evil 8217 TheBlaze.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You two never read the book did ya'?

"Atlas Shrugged".

I read both "Fountainhead" and "Altas Shrugge" Great Fiction.

But dreadful to base a political philosophy on, or to use as a model of governance.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Brilliant! Take a good look at your role model, Libertarians and misguided conservatives. Pro-choice, anti-Reagan, anti-religion, anti-native Americans, pro-selfishness...you all picked a winner to emulate.

What a dangerously nazi-style crock of left wing, un-American, democrat socialist propaganda. And it isn't even clever. Just chopped up, out of context propaganda. You lefties must be feeling mighty threatened by the all American concept of individualism and intellectual property as opposed to your sheeple collective socialistic herd think.
Creepy idiocy of the left. Only the mindless vote democrat these days.

Look up False Dilemma.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Saying Rand is a screw ball doesn't automatically mean anyone is threatened by individualism. Nice try but, as you can see, Democrats aren't as mindless as you think. You're the one touting an "ism", usually the signature feature of the mindless.

The entire piece is framed for the purpose of disparaging anyone who references Rand. It's less about her and more about disparaging those whom the left fear. You know, freedom and individual liberty fans.

 

[bripat9643]

You two never read the book did ya'?

"Atlas Shrugged".

Unbelievably stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

You two never read the book did ya'?

"Atlas Shrugged".

I read both "Fountainhead" and "Altas Shrugge" Great Fiction.

But dreadful to base a political philosophy on, or to use as a model of governance.

Yeah, the Communist Manifesto is so much better, right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"How Is Ayn Rand Still A Thing?"

Because libertarians and most on the right are frightened reactionaries, they seek to return to an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with – for them the neo-Social Darwinism that Rand advocated is incorrectly perceived to be the means by which to realize that inane and ridiculous goal.

 

[Bfgrn]

Like many famous figures, Rand isn't a complete waste of time to read:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand

Yet it is Any Rand libertarians who support private prisons. Private entities lobbying for more prisoners for profit. Their HATE of government of We, the People is coupled with their worship of invisible hands and 'magic' laissez-faire.

Presidential candidate Gary Johnson talks guns, for-profit prisons
For-profit prison companies like Correction Corporation of America and GEO Group have been in the news for an array of negative issues, including running dangerous facilities and being accused of lobbying lawmakers to create legislation that would put more people behind bars, including having an influence on Arizona's controversial immigration law, which would put more immigrants in detention facilities.

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson was an avid supporter of private prisons. And although he acknowledges that they have problems, he also believes that the positives outweigh the negatives.

 

[rightwinger]

You two never read the book did ya'?

"Atlas Shrugged".

Unbelievably stupid.

The essence of Atlas shrugged

 

[JoeB131]

Personally, I find her creepy

Anyway, what exactly is it that you find creepy about the notion of personal responsibility and the promise to not accept charity that is forced from strangers?

Besides the fact that if you accept it, then it isn't "forced", you also have the problem that Ayn Rand didn't die like a rugged individualist when she got old and sick.

She took Medicare and Social Security. She wasn't living on Book Royalties.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The only people I see talking about Rand here are you big government types.

 

[JoeB131]

[
By looking at the actual RESULTS of that "help" objectively. For instance, since we began spending other people's money on the so called 'great society', whose idea was to end poverty, the rate of poverty has actually increased. In the decades before spending began, the rate of poverty was dropping precipitously. You caused it to go in the opposite direction! But hey, what's tens of trillions of dollars among friends, right? And who cares if you meddlers made the situation worse, it's the intention that counts, right?

And sorry, you don't get to determine what is and what is not "civilized".

So, I ask again, what exactly is it that you find creepy about the notion of personal responsibility and the promise to not accept charity that is forced from strangers? Be specific now...

The problem with your argument is that spending to help poor people increased poverty.

Nope.

What increased poverty was that the wealthy, the 1%ers dismantled the unions that allowed people to get out of poverty with jobs that paid fair wages. They sent the good paying jobs overseas, they replaced people with machines. and all those fucking poor people who couldn't get jobs as good as their parents just fucking refused to dutifully starve to death.

You guys complain about the layabouts who wait for their government checks to arrive, but the fact is, 40% of households that get SNAP benefits have at least one person with a job.

And then you wonder why people vote for democrats.

 

[JoeB131]