Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, and anyone who has claimed to have been greatly influenced (and continues to be) by her writings (Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Rafael "Ted" Cruz) should not be anywhere near the presidency. That is fair game for an election.What high horse? Republicans have their useful, or useless, boogeymen as well. Bill Ayers comes to mind. This thread, however, is about Ayn Rand.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 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.
So get down from your high horse.
Wow. That's delusional.Don'tAnd you?Some do, some don't.A limited role is still a role, and thus implies that she did not support the free market absolutely.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.
So, do libertarians see a role for the government?
Greenspan admitted it!Not even close.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.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.
Does Rand Paul claim to be "greatly influenced" by her, or simply that he liked her novels? I don't want any of those people to be President either, but I don't care what novelists they like.Yes, and anyone who has claimed to have been greatly influenced (and continues to be) by her writings (Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Rafael "Ted" Cruz) should not be anywhere near the presidency. That is fair game for an election.What high horse? Republicans have their useful, or useless, boogeymen as well. Bill Ayers comes to mind. This thread, however, is about Ayn Rand.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 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.
So get down from your high horse.
Well there's no call to be rude.Wow. That's delusional.Don'tAnd you?Some do, some don't.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?
Okay...strike one. I have respected you enough to not digress into sophomoric aspersions like a five-year-old. Please show me the same courtesy.Welll...except the reality suggests that isn't really the case...Actually, on the surface, Rands theories actually make some sense. Business would thrive without government interference, if it would police itself. The problem is, it doesn't. This is evidenced by the financial crisis of `08. Many people rightly point out that Clinton laid the groundwork for that cluster-cuk, by signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
The financial crisis wasn't caused businesses Policing Themselves...it was caused by Big Government Cronyism.
No it doesn't, but a libturd will never admit government was responsible.
So the chief central planner of the economy, in other words, the exact opposite of the free market, admitted that his "free market" ideology was to blame? Color me shocked. I'm sorry but Greenspan long ago gave up on any free market beliefs he may have once held, and then proved it by becoming Chairman of the Fed. One cannot implement the free market as Chairman of the Fed because the Fed is the antithesis of the free market.Greenspan admitted it!Not even close.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.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.
Glass-Steagall belongs in the same category as blaming everything on BOOOSSSSH and the Koch Brothers.
But, again, the sub-prime debacle, and the collapse of the housing bubble, should not, and would not, have been enough to have caused the cascading collapse of the entire economy, any more than the dot com collapse, or any other bubble collapse over the last 20 years. It was the trading of those worthless mortgages through derivatives that caused the wider collapse of the financial sector. And that was only possible with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. That is the part you keep wanting to pretend didn't happen.Your explanation of the so-called "problem with Rand's theories" is entirely fictional. Government regulations like CRA caused the problem in 2008, not deregulation. All you have done is post the classic Marxist propaganda that blames private corporations for every problem created by government. Government has been the cause of every financial panic we've ever had, including the one in 2008. It's hardly an argument against laizzed faire economics. In fact, it's precisely the opposite.
That is simply not true. At worst, the CRA can be pointed to as a factor in the collapse of the housing bubble. However, we have had numerous other bubbles burst in the last 30 years that didn't cause a catastrophic cascade across the entire financial sector, decimating the economy. The only reason that the housing collapse was any different was that the housing market got tied directly to the banking industry through the trading of mortgage-backed derivatives. And guess what made that possible? That's right, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed unfettered, unregulated practices in the financial district with absolutely no transparancy necessary. To suggest anything different is simply ignoring reality in order to defend a concept that has already been proven doesn't work.
That's leftwing propaganda. It is true. The CRA and govenrment regulators pushing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified buyers is what caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. That's why it's called "the sub-prime mortgage debacle."
Liberals have tried to weasel their way around the facts and blame the banks for the problem, but any cursory analysis shows immediately that government had its finger in the process at every point, all the way from origination to securitization and purchase on the secondary market. The claim that under regulation of the banking industry caused the problem is too absurd for words. There are something like 50 different agencies regulating banks.
Ignoring of course the Federal Reserve's role in distorting the capital structure of the entire economy, thus causing the collapse.But, again, the sub-prime debacle, and the collapse of the housing bubble, should not, and would not, have been enough to have caused the cascading collapse of the entire economy, any more than the dot com collapse, or any other bubble collapse over the last 20 years. It was the trading of those worthless mortgages through derivatives that caused the wider collapse of the financial sector. And that was only possible with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. That is the part you keep wanting to pretend didn't happen.Your explanation of the so-called "problem with Rand's theories" is entirely fictional. Government regulations like CRA caused the problem in 2008, not deregulation. All you have done is post the classic Marxist propaganda that blames private corporations for every problem created by government. Government has been the cause of every financial panic we've ever had, including the one in 2008. It's hardly an argument against laizzed faire economics. In fact, it's precisely the opposite.
That is simply not true. At worst, the CRA can be pointed to as a factor in the collapse of the housing bubble. However, we have had numerous other bubbles burst in the last 30 years that didn't cause a catastrophic cascade across the entire financial sector, decimating the economy. The only reason that the housing collapse was any different was that the housing market got tied directly to the banking industry through the trading of mortgage-backed derivatives. And guess what made that possible? That's right, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed unfettered, unregulated practices in the financial district with absolutely no transparancy necessary. To suggest anything different is simply ignoring reality in order to defend a concept that has already been proven doesn't work.
That's leftwing propaganda. It is true. The CRA and govenrment regulators pushing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified buyers is what caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. That's why it's called "the sub-prime mortgage debacle."
Liberals have tried to weasel their way around the facts and blame the banks for the problem, but any cursory analysis shows immediately that government had its finger in the process at every point, all the way from origination to securitization and purchase on the secondary market. The claim that under regulation of the banking industry caused the problem is too absurd for words. There are something like 50 different agencies regulating banks.
Only if enforced. Christopher Cox did not enforce them, in accordance with Bush administration priorities to ease regulatory oversight, and with Republican Congress priorities to cut funding to regulatory agencies. Fact.Welll...except the reality suggests that isn't really the case...Actually, on the surface, Rands theories actually make some sense. Business would thrive without government interference, if it would police itself. The problem is, it doesn't. This is evidenced by the financial crisis of `08. Many people rightly point out that Clinton laid the groundwork for that cluster-cuk, by signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
The financial crisis wasn't caused businesses Policing Themselves...it was caused by Big Government Cronyism.
Well, except for the fact that the Financial and Real Estate industries are highly regulated, that the Fed is basically owned by Wall Street with a direct line to the White House, that Federally Subsidized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enabled the mainstreaming of subprime liar loans, that the Federal Government de facto mandated race based quotas for mortgages which could only be met by subprime loans, that politically connected speculators used such subprime loans to bid up real estate prices in an inflated bubble and then cashed out.....
He's named after her. By his father, whom he grew up with and learned his life philosophy from.Does Rand Paul claim to be "greatly influenced" by her, or simply that he liked her novels? I don't want any of those people to be President either, but I don't care what novelists they like.Yes, and anyone who has claimed to have been greatly influenced (and continues to be) by her writings (Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Rafael "Ted" Cruz) should not be anywhere near the presidency. That is fair game for an election.What high horse? Republicans have their useful, or useless, boogeymen as well. Bill Ayers comes to mind. This thread, however, is about Ayn Rand.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 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.
So get down from your high horse.
I'm not trying to be rude, Kevin. But seeing no role for government is clearly delusional.Well there's no call to be rude.Wow. That's delusional.Don'tAnd you?Some do, some don't.So, do libertarians see a role for the government?
No, his name is Randal, and he was called Randy most of his life until his wife decided that was too childish and shortened it to Rand.He's named after her. By his father, whom he grew up with and learned his life philosophy from.Does Rand Paul claim to be "greatly influenced" by her, or simply that he liked her novels? I don't want any of those people to be President either, but I don't care what novelists they like.Yes, and anyone who has claimed to have been greatly influenced (and continues to be) by her writings (Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Rafael "Ted" Cruz) should not be anywhere near the presidency. That is fair game for an election.What high horse? Republicans have their useful, or useless, boogeymen as well. Bill Ayers comes to mind. This thread, however, is about Ayn Rand.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 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.
So get down from your high horse.
I would say that allowing the state to commit aggression against people is immoral, and thinking that that aggression can be limited is delusional. History shows this over and over.I'm not trying to be rude, Kevin. But seeing no role for government is clearly delusional.Well there's no call to be rude.Wow. That's delusional.Don'tAnd you?Some do, some don't.
Which is incredibly naive.Glass-Steagall belongs in the same category as blaming everything on BOOOSSSSH and the Koch Brothers.
What?!?! did you even read my post?!?! Not once did I mention Bush, the Koch Brothers, or even suggest that Republicans were to blame for the loosening of regulations! I put the blame squarely where it belonged - on a Democrat.
He's named after her, I am convinced. Papa Ron was/is a HUGE fan. But he's no dummy, and knows she's a cult figure.No, his name is Randal, and he was called Randy most of his life until his wife decided that was too childish and shortened it to Rand.He's named after her. By his father, whom he grew up with and learned his life philosophy from.Does Rand Paul claim to be "greatly influenced" by her, or simply that he liked her novels? I don't want any of those people to be President either, but I don't care what novelists they like.Yes, and anyone who has claimed to have been greatly influenced (and continues to be) by her writings (Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Rafael "Ted" Cruz) should not be anywhere near the presidency. That is fair game for an election.What high horse? Republicans have their useful, or useless, boogeymen as well. Bill Ayers comes to mind. This thread, however, is about Ayn Rand.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.
You mean the Federal Reserve that was headed by Allen Greenspan - a Republican appointee? Actually, Greenspan's efforts were an attenpt to stave off the on-coming disaster created by the selfish, short-sighted behavior of the financial industry. Admittedly, it was a dismal attempt, but are you seriously suggesting that if Greenspan hadn't tried to shore up the industry that it wouldn't have done exactly what it did? Really???? All you're trying to do is find a way to keep from having to admit that the unregulated private sector was the orchestrator of its own demise.Ignoring of course the Federal Reserve's role in distorting the capital structure of the entire economy, thus causing the collapse.But, again, the sub-prime debacle, and the collapse of the housing bubble, should not, and would not, have been enough to have caused the cascading collapse of the entire economy, any more than the dot com collapse, or any other bubble collapse over the last 20 years. It was the trading of those worthless mortgages through derivatives that caused the wider collapse of the financial sector. And that was only possible with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. That is the part you keep wanting to pretend didn't happen.Your explanation of the so-called "problem with Rand's theories" is entirely fictional. Government regulations like CRA caused the problem in 2008, not deregulation. All you have done is post the classic Marxist propaganda that blames private corporations for every problem created by government. Government has been the cause of every financial panic we've ever had, including the one in 2008. It's hardly an argument against laizzed faire economics. In fact, it's precisely the opposite.
That is simply not true. At worst, the CRA can be pointed to as a factor in the collapse of the housing bubble. However, we have had numerous other bubbles burst in the last 30 years that didn't cause a catastrophic cascade across the entire financial sector, decimating the economy. The only reason that the housing collapse was any different was that the housing market got tied directly to the banking industry through the trading of mortgage-backed derivatives. And guess what made that possible? That's right, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed unfettered, unregulated practices in the financial district with absolutely no transparancy necessary. To suggest anything different is simply ignoring reality in order to defend a concept that has already been proven doesn't work.
That's leftwing propaganda. It is true. The CRA and govenrment regulators pushing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified buyers is what caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. That's why it's called "the sub-prime mortgage debacle."
Liberals have tried to weasel their way around the facts and blame the banks for the problem, but any cursory analysis shows immediately that government had its finger in the process at every point, all the way from origination to securitization and purchase on the secondary market. The claim that under regulation of the banking industry caused the problem is too absurd for words. There are something like 50 different agencies regulating banks.
So ignoring the facts because you think you know better. What were you saying about me being delusional?He's named after her, I am convinced. Papa Ron was/is a HUGE fan. But he's no dummy, and knows she's a cult figure.No, his name is Randal, and he was called Randy most of his life until his wife decided that was too childish and shortened it to Rand.He's named after her. By his father, whom he grew up with and learned his life philosophy from.Does Rand Paul claim to be "greatly influenced" by her, or simply that he liked her novels? I don't want any of those people to be President either, but I don't care what novelists they like.Yes, and anyone who has claimed to have been greatly influenced (and continues to be) by her writings (Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Rafael "Ted" Cruz) should not be anywhere near the presidency. That is fair game for an election.What high horse? Republicans have their useful, or useless, boogeymen as well. Bill Ayers comes to mind. This thread, however, is about Ayn Rand.
